Laserfiche WebLink
MINiI'i'ES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANi7ARY 18, 1995 <br />neighborhood. <br />Stauff stated that he was completely in disfavor of <br />improving the street. Stauff asked if there was a tie <br />vote on the part of the property owners, how the <br />Council would make the decision. <br />Fahey replied that the Council would consider how the <br />neighborhood feels about the road improvement. The <br />surveys show two property owners in favor of the <br />improvement and two opposed. The City also has Waivers <br />of Right to Appeal Special Assessments from two of the <br />lots, therefore, those property owners are deemed in <br />favor of the improvement. Fahey indicated that when as <br />many property owners favor an improvement as are <br />opposed to it, it is generally a judgement call on the <br />part of the Council. Either way the Council will make <br />50% of the property owners happy and the other 50% <br />unhappy. <br />The City Administrator pointed out that the Waiver of <br />Right to Appeal applied to the water main improvement. <br />Staff did not contemplate the road improvement at the <br />time. Therefore, these two property owners would still <br />have the right to appeal assessments related to the <br />street improvement. The Administrator pointed out that <br />after the neighborhood meeting which was held on the <br />water main and street improvement proposals, a mailed <br />survey was sent to the property owners to get their <br />opinions on the various options. There was not an <br />overwhelming response to that survey in that only four <br />of the nine property owners affected returned the <br />survey. <br />Fahey commented that if property owners feel strongly <br />about something, they will attend the Council meeting <br />to discuss it. If property owners do not attend the <br />public hearing and do not return the mailed survey, the <br />Council has not received a lot of guidance. <br />Morelan pointed out that Mr. Gustafson indicated on the <br />survey he returned that he favored road reconstruction. <br />Mr. Rector indicated <br />and as far as he was <br />satisfactory. Rector <br />water main alignment <br />neighbors. <br />that he did not return the survey, <br />concerned the existing road was <br />stated that he supported either <br />that will get water main to his <br />6 <br />