CC 10-10-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - October 10,2000 6 Councilmember Larson's recollection was that only one feasibility study was produced by the . City and accepted for public comment. He added that the document referred to by Councilmember Rem was most likely a preliminary draft of the feasibility study. It was Councilmember Rem's recollection that two feasibility studies were released, and the first study was not designated as a draft. Councilmember Aplikowski stated that the impact on the neighborhood should have been considered before the feasibility report was undertaken. She reiterated that the project should be postponed until further review is completed. She stressed that many city streets are in need of repair which will be done in the future. Councilmember Aplikowski stated that a neighborhood project of this type may not be appropriate, She added that she has been on the Council for eight years and has always attempted to support the City's road improvement efforts, She noted that, in this case, she is unable to support the project, partially due to resident's comments. Councilmember Grant stated that a concerned resident recently approached him that his street, which was in good condition, was scheduled for reconstruction. He added he does not like the current PMP neighborhood project concept, as it does not reflect a sound financial decision, Mayor Probst stated that a rejection ofthe feasibility report and abandonment of the project . constitutes bad public policy on the part ofthe Council. He expressed his disappointment that the discussion in no way reflects discussions held over the past year. He noted that the current Council had voted unanimously, with the exception of Council member Grant who was not a member of the Council at that time, to move ahead with the project on a neighborhood basis. Mayor Probst stated that it was agreed a year ago that the Ingerson neighborhood had the worst collection of streets, He reiterated that a purpose of the resolution is to establish a public hearing for residents to express their concerns. He noted that the public hearing is not being held at this meeting, Mayor Probst stated that, in rejecting the program, the Council will do a disservice to the neighborhood in particular and the community in general, He added that the neighborhood does not have a storm water management system, and there is significant disagreement with regard to solving storm water issues. Councilmember Larson stated that the Council should have been more specific in its request to staff for a feasibility study. He added that staff and the City Engineer did not fail in completing what was requested by the Council. He noted that the Council should be specific, and communicate to staff that a 6" curb and gutter is not preferred. Councilmember Aplikowski stated that staff requested that the Council not be specific about . such matters. She added the recommendation was that staff bring back options, She noted that the revised feasibility report does not present options.