Laserfiche WebLink
MIPlUTES <br />City Council <br />Apri1 22, 7981 <br />Mr. Fahey stated that the Counci7 had two alternatives: to either abandon <br />the project or condemn the property. <br />Mr. forsberg stated that it was his understanding that Mr. Johnson is <br />not objecting to granting the easements. Mr. Johnson just does not <br />want to be assessed for improvements on the back portion of his <br />property. <br />The Attorney reported that this is correct, and it will not be <br />possible to assess Vil1eaux at all, as his property does not benefit <br />from the improvement. Parks stated that the remaining properties <br />would have to pay the total assessment. <br />P-1r. Forsberg stated that Mr. Johnson has already given the City 30 feet <br />of easement and is now being asked for additional easements. <br />Mr. Parks suggested the alternative of puttiny in a cul-de-sac. Parks <br />stated that it appeared to him the City would be putting in a road that <br />Vil1eaux and Johnson would be better off without and that only benefited <br />the property owners behind them. Parks also stated that if Park Street <br />went through to Demont and the City did not assess Johnson, the property <br />owners behind Johnson would complain. <br />Mr. Villeaux informed the Council that if neither he nor Mr. Johnson were <br />assessed for the improvement of Park Street this wou1d be an additional <br />$60,000 that the remaining property owners would have to pick up. <br />Mrs. Plardini stated that a cul-de-sac could not be put in as it would <br />be too long and, therefore, illegal. <br />Mr. Schultz, a resident of the area, stated that he thinks there are <br />not too many people in the area who sti71 want Park Street to go through. <br />Mrs. Scalze suggested that perhaps the property owners should know <br />the additional cost that would be involved should Johnson and Vil1eaux <br />not be assessed. <br />The City Attorney stated that the City must assess an improvement <br />uniformly. /11so the City cannot assess in excess of the benefit pravided. <br />Mrs. Scalze and Mr. Forsberg both stated that they would never be in <br />favor of condemning the property. <br />The Engineer stated that neither Villeaux nor Johnson have watermains <br />and they would have to be assessed for water. <br />Mrs. Sca1ze introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTI0~1 N0. 81-~l-198 - PUTTING THE PARK STREET IMPROVEMENT <br />PROPOSAL ON THE AGENDA FOR THE MAY 13, 1981 COUNCIL MEETIMG <br />AND INSTRUCTING THE C.ITY ENGINEER TO REPORT BACK WITH STUDIES <br />AS INDICA7ED BY COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON FRONT FOOTFlGE COSTS FlND <br />ANY EFlSEMENTS THAT FlRE NEEDED fOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND FURTHER <br />INS7RUCTING THAT THE CITY CLERK NOTIFY THE PROPERTY OWNERS <br />INVOLVED THAT TNIS ITEM WILL BE ON THE FlGENDA MFlY 13, 7981 <br />Page -1~4- <br />