CC 01-10-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 10, 2000 21 . she first became a Councilmemher the only notice the residents received was for the assessment hearing. The amount of mistrust cxpressed at the beginning of thi s meeting was very distressful to her. She stated that the City staff and Engineering Ilrm worked very hard to provide the residents with good facts. Councilmember Aplikowski stated that the City Pavement Management Plan was at least 10 years old. However, many of the residents acted as though they did not know that the Pavement Management Plan existed. She indicated that information regarding the Pavement Management Plan and assessment policy has been published in the City newspaper and she felt that this process should not come as a surprise to the residents. She felt that the City Council may have to do something about this issue. She applauded the residents for the efforts made to be prepared this evening and she hoped that the City and residcnts can work together to resolve the trust issucs. She indicated that the Councilmembers were elected by the residents of Arden Hills because the residents felt as though they could trust them. She added that very few of the residents took the time to call the City after the November 29, 1999 informational meeting Councilmember Aplikowski stated that she does prefer the addition of curbs and gutters when a road is recycled. However, this does not mean that she can not or will not change her mind. Councilmember Grant commended the residents for the amount work that they put into this evening's meeting and for being very organized. He indicated that he was new on the Council and the majority of this plan had been done prior to his being appointed. . Mayor Probst stated that the request before the City Council was to take some action on the proposed street improvements to the Ingerson neighborhood. The Council has the options of doing nothing, postponing the discussions, ordering additional work, modifying the proposed improvements, or ordering the work as presented. Councilmember Larson stated that he had received comments from residents who believe that the assessments were incorrect because the amount of street frontage did not match what they believed their actual frontage to be. He discussed this issue with Mr. Stafford and it was his understanding that the assessment policy did not simply reflect the street frontage since the amount of frontage depends upon the lot shape. He asked Mr. Stafford to further explain the considerations of the City assessment policy. Mr. Stafford explained that, for example, with a pie shaped lot located on a cul-de-sac with a street frontage of 50 feet and a rear lot line of ISO feet, the assessment policy considers the average of these two figures. Councilmember Larson confirmed that the total amount of frontage for assessment purposes was the average of the front and rear lot widths. Mr. Stafford stated that this was correct. . Mr. Post stated that the philosophy behind the assessment policy for oddly shaped lots was to normalize those lots. Mayor Probst noted that for a typical rectangular lot with 100 feet of street frontage, the assessment would be based on that 100 feet and the assessment policy has a section that deals with odd shaped lots and corner lots.