Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I. <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />.. <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I. <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JULY 15. 1996 <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />B. Gene Schmidt, 1628 McCracken Lane, Assessment Discussion <br /> <br />Mr. Fritsinger reviewed the recent request from Mr. Schmidt for reconsideration of his <br />assessment and the points outlined in the staff report clarifYing the use of the current assessment <br />policy. The City attorney has recommended that the assessment is based on the policy and <br />procedurally was done correct. Staff recommends Council reiterate its support of its previous <br />action to deny the appeal. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hicks commented that Mr. Schmidt raises some good questions, but believes the <br />fair thing for all involved is to follow the policy. If the City doesn't follow its policy, other <br />residents would expect similar treatment. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst spoke against the motion. Comer lots are difficult to deal with and the City did <br />grant a reduction at the corner lot across the street (1624 Chatham) due to an easement which <br />reduced the developability of the lot. Mayor Probst indicated that Mr. Hick's motion is <br />consistent with the policy, however, he stated there should be room for some logic and <br />accommodation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Keirn questioned whether there was a curb adjacent to Mr. Schmidt's property. <br />Mayor Probst responded affirmatively. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hicks commented on the drainage patterns in the area, and the only argument <br />that could be considered for reducing the assessment would be the lack of change to the property. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski indicated that this was a difficult issue for her, but the policy is clear <br />and, as such, until the policy were changed, she couldn't agree to reduction. <br /> <br />MOTION: <br /> <br />Hicks moved and Aplikowski seconded a motion to deny the request for <br />reconsideration on the assessment appeal. The motion carried (3-2). Mayor <br />Probst and Councilmember Keirn opposed. <br /> <br />ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS <br /> <br />Mr. Fritsinger reviewed his response in regards to pond maintenance. Councilmember Malone <br />reviewed the history of the neighbors requesting the previous property owner maintain the site. <br />Councilmember Hicks commented his support for the recommendation of the administrator and <br />the remainder of the Council concurred <br /> <br />Mr. Fritsinger indicated he is receiving a great deal of response to the RFQ for architectural <br />services. He requested clarification on the role of Mayor Probst in the selection process should <br />BRW/Ellness submit. While there is not a legal conflict of interest, questions have been raised <br />by respondents to the role of Mr. Probst. <br />