CC_Minutes_2014_1006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 6, 2014 Page 18 Roe moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11183 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Adopting and Confirming 2014 Assessments for City Project P-ST-SW-W-13-02: County Road D Reconstruction between Lexington Avenue and Victoria Street." Councilmember Laliberte stated that she had a hard time not taking action across the board, even though only two written appeals had been presented; she assumed there were concerns of other property owners; and to just pick out two parcels for reconsideration, it didn't' seem appropriate. Councilmember Laliberte also ex- pressed concern in setting precedent with this project in comparison to those completed in the past and those coming in the future. At the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of the motion to adopt the as- sessments as presented, due to her concern with potentially setting a new prece- dent. Councilmember Willmus spoke in opposition to the motion, stating that primarily the City had an obligation when reconstruction an MSA roadway to look at traffic on those roadways beyond localized traffic and benefitting a broader area, which was the purpose of MSA dollars. Councilmember Willmus suggested factoring that into decisions going forward. Furthermore, Councilmember Willmus stated that his second issue was that when the project was originally considered, he had asked to separate the question, as he did not support installation of a sidewalk on the south side, since there was already one in place on the north Shoreview side. As a result, Councilmember Willmus noted the subsequent need for retaining walls, and the loss of owner use of boulevards, in addition to a loss of trees in some cases. Therefore, Councilmember Willmus expressed his opposition with this measure, and in going forward, when he looked at reconstruction of MSA roadways, suggested that the City Council plan accordingly for using those MSA dollars and review its assessment policy as applicable in those instances. Councilmember Etten spoke in support of the motion, expressing similar reserva- tions as expressed by Councilmember Laliberte and for consistency with the City's assessment policy in the past, now and in the foreseeable future. While recognizing that nuances may be frustrating for property owners, Councilmember Etten opined that the policy couldn't be taken apart one driveway at a time or for one assessment or parcel against another, which would serve to destroy the pro- cess for road reconstruction. Councilmember Etten noted that the City very sel- dom assessed for roadways, and specific to the sidewalk installation, he hoped they and others had been using and enjoying that benefit versus having to cross the road. Councilmember McGehee spoke in opposition to the motion for the reasons she previously noted, opining that these are two exceptional cases, with the roadway lowered beyond what was originally proposed. Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Etten's comments regarding the sidewalk as indicated by