CC 01-10-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 10, 2000 24 . With the amount of work that has gone into this project already, Councilmember Rem stated that it would not make sense to simply throw it out She felt that the City should continue with the current framework and take into consideration the issues ofthc ncighborhood. Mayor Probst expressed concern that if the project was delayed for one year and the same impasse was reached, this would cost the City two years oftime that could have been used to respond to other issues within the City. 1ffelt that if the City chose to continue with this project and slowed down the process, the residents would understand that the project will take place and he hoped that they would be able accept this. Councilmember Aplikowski stated that she was not comfortable with the idea of changing Engineering firms or bring another agency in to review the project. She indicated that the City has been very conservative about the use of consultants. She felt that if the level of trust improved and the neighborhood was willing to discuss the proposal, she would be willing to make a motion that the City postpone the project for one year. However, ifthe project is delayed and the City is met with the same attitude of mistrust, she felt that the project should be dropped. She stated that the level of mistrust must be overcome before she would be willing to vote in favor of moving forward with the project. . Councilmember Rem noted that the residents had expressed a desire to work together with the City on this project. Councilmcmber Grant agreed and felt that the residents simply wanted to be part of the process. He felt that the issues presented by the residents were valid and he could see come changes that he would like to propose for the project He stated that he would prefer to not be in the position of removing the project from the table and felt that the City should provide the aJIected residents with better notification. He stated that the City Council needed to establish a level oftrust with the residents and he encouraged the City Council to work through the issues and continue with the project. Councilmember Larson stated that it was difficult to determine how the residents really felt about this project Some residents were completely opposed to any reconstruction project, while others provided specific reasons as to why they were opposed, such as not wanting storm water retention ponds, curbs and gutters, or the widening ofthe streets. He indicated that if the only concern was for the level of assessments, and the City eliminated all other aspects of the project and only reconstructed the streets, the assessments would still be approximately $45 per foot. He indicated that the residents gave a number of reasons for not moving forward with the project, however, it was not clear to him that the underlying opposition was to the assessments. If the City Council finds that there were reasons to continue with this project, Councilmember Larson suggested that the City Engineer be asked to provide the cost differences for narrower streets. Councilmember Larson stated that since Ingerson Avenue is a collector street, he felt that it should be widened. However, he would be comfortable with the other streets not being widened. He stated that the City Engineer could also consider the possibility of lining the streets with rain gardens. However, the reconstruction of the streets themselves was still the principal cost. . Councilmember Larson stated that he would like some additional time to think about this proposal and would prefer to discuss it further at the next City Council meeting.