CC_Minutes_2014_1006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 6, 2014 Page 13 At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan clarified that the City Coun- cil had the authority to remove any properties from the list of proposed parcels to be assessed and thereby approve only a partial list to be assessed. At the further request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan clarified that once the assessment had been determined tonight by the City Council, the property owner could no longer appeal the decision. Mr. Gaughan noted that all property owners to be assessed had been advised of this stipulation by mailed notice of to- night's proposed action, and had been instructed to file any written objection with the City and then within thirty days file action in the state district court for their review by that district court specific to their particular parcel. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Attorney Gaughan further clari- fied that, in accordance with state law, notice had gone out regarding tonight's public hearing, including this actual provision, instructing them to file their writ- ten objection before or at the tonight's public hearing; not actually yet filing in district court, but putting the City on notice of their intent to do so. Mr. Gaughan advised that the City had received two (2) letters of objection, provided as bench handouts at the dais, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and complied with the provision language as instructed. Those written objections were from: Brian CK Stenquist and N. Nancy Misra at 1022 County Road D West (Property ID #022923229910) received October 6, 2014 and Jeana Hamm and Susan Nie- derhauser at 1038 West County Road D (Property ID #022923220012). At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan advised that it was within the City Council's authority to deviate and amend the proposed assessment roll and adopt it in a fashion other than presented; and if that occurs, staff was re- quired to provide direct notice to property owners of that amendment. If one of those aggrieved property owners was not present at tonight's meeting, they would still receive notice of actions by the City Council if they deviated from the pro- posed assessment roll. At the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Engineer Culver confirmed that the project was substantially completed the end of 2013, but remaining work on retaining walls and boulevard restoration was completed over the summer of 2014 construction season, and final completion in early September of 2014. Mr. Culver further reviewed the typical City of Roseville practice to perform the benefit re- port as part of the initial feasibility study and set the maximum benefit at that time, with the initial and separate public hearing held at that time for property owners advising them of the maximum benefit and proposed assessments based on estimated costs. At the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Engineer Culver reviewed avail- able Minnesota State Aid (MSA) dollar available to the City on an annual basis