03-17-81 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, MARCH 17, 1981 -2- HRA: The Council supported the assistance program; but had several questions they would like answered before passing ( the resolution. The Council dad not want to attest to the need for this program; and did not want to be required to monitor it. Mr. Helgesen said he will get the answers for the Council and come back on April 7. Mottaz moved, seconded by Fraser, to table any action on the HRA resolution until April 7. Motion carried 5-0. ASSESSMENTS: A. Irvin Court - Administrator Whittaker asked if the Council had any remaining questions on the project or the assessment. Morgan expressed serious reservations about the assessments to residents whose home have been in the area 15 to 20 years, long before Irvin Court and Lake Jane Hills. He did not feel these homes contribute to or benefit from the project. He alsd did not think the residents in Lake Jane Hills should bear the total assessment. It is his opinion that the City is partially responsible for this project. The Council discussed the homes immediately affected by the Lake Jane Hills development. Morgan proposed that the City assume half the obligation and assess the remaining amount. Morgan moved, seconded by Mottaz, to adopt 1t-81-13,to approve payment of the easement cost,,,by the Citv, for .the.Irvin Ct. Project for $2;,00(1. The remaining-$1,831.24 to he assessed to the properties per -the Engineer's Assessment Roster. Discussion: Fraser asked that the motion be clarified. Morgan -explained his proposal, -outlined -the -background -of -the -area, - and explained why he feels there is an inequity to those being assessed. The motion, if passed, would "leave $1,831.24 to be assessed. Fraser asked what implicatuns this would have on assessing other areas, In support of this action, Eder said some of the problem was caused by the construction of Lake Jane Trail in 1960. Adequate drainage was not provided, thus, this is an error the Community has to live with. Novak asked the difference between Irvin Court and Beutel Pond. Morgan said the residents in the Irvin Court area had their own sub -watershed that drained into Lake Jane; and, only after development up stream did this sukr=u�atershed,:ch:an,ge. The water f residents in the.Aeutel Pond watershed drains to 3eutel Pond whereas this -is -.not the case with many of the residents being assessed for the Irvin Court project, The development of Lake Jane Hills is the primary cause of the Irvin Court Project. Motion carried 3-2. Novak and Fraser o,pposed... ( B. Little Sunfish Lake- The Council reviewed the Administrator's memo indicating that part of several parcels belong to cdn/DOT. These were not listed as being owned by Mn/DOT on the tax books available to the Citv.