Laserfiche WebLink
Marcl~ 8, i978 <br />Page 3 <br />repiied that even if the assessments were dauble, he felt the benefits reaped by <br />~ the businesses would be ~nuch greater. <br />"~~".er Sargeant, 2268 H111view reaC a statement he had prevlously read at the <br />~ebruary 21 publie hearing, consisting of l0A signaturus, requesting thet tha <br />City Council deny the pro~ect. He added that the steering comnitteo had e <br />professionai geologist who had been researching the effects of the pro~ect for <br />them and who would be making a statement at a later date regarding tha effects. <br />Commission Member Glazer pointed out that there are quite a few Type 4 marshes <br />throughout the City but that tha Type 2 and 3 marshes would likely 6e drained <br />and the habitate lost. <br />Councilmember Baumgartner asked Mr. Lang for a c1ar~iflcation of his statement <br />thaC the citizens would have no alternative but to questions the C1ty Cnuncil's <br />sense of fairness arid integrity in re~ards to the proposed pro~ect 1P it w~re <br />approvad. He stated that the Council had ordered the study in 1975 because <br />they were asked to dn it by a17 the citizens who attended th~ Council meetings <br />and discussed their water problems, and also because they felt it was necessary. <br />Ne added that th~ City Attorney had advised the Council on each step and that <br />the State statute had been followed step by step to insure that everything was <br />being done properiy. <br />Mr. Lang replied that there does not seem to have been much contact between the <br />City Councit Tnd the cit7zens, a~d that the citizens had not been given a~ <br />opportunity Co say what they could afford. He added that he did not feel the <br />City Council had shown respect to the citizens. <br />!~ Cowicilm~nber Baumgartner replied that the pro~ect had b?en discussed at several <br />City Council meetings and at various informational hearings and that legel notice <br />had been published. He also reminded Mr. Lang that a11 Councll meetings and <br />Agenda meetings are open ta the publlc and that the public is welcane to attend <br />at any time and give their input. <br />Dwayne McCarthy, 8060 iang Lake Road stated that he felt many business lands <br />would be benefitted greatly by the pro~ect, eYen if they were taxed at double <br />the residentia7 rate. Chairperson Haake replied that a professional firm had <br />been hired to set the assessments and that the City was going by their recomnen- <br />dation. Councilmember Baumgartner added that Eh7ers and Associates was the <br />consultSng firm's name. <br />Camiission Member Burmeister pointed out that at the public hearing e~~eryone was <br />supposed to be 7lmited to three minutes speaking time buC that the Council went <br />out of their way Lo be lenient and Jet everyone say what they had to say, whether <br />it went over three minutes or not. <br />Mr. Sargeant stated that the steering camiittee was circulating petitions and <br />would have in excess of 6,000 signatures soon, of citiaens opposed to the prnposed <br />pro~ect. Mr. Sargear~t added that the steering comnittee was canposed of 15 pro- <br />f?ssional people, who were witling ta take the matter as far in court as necessary <br />to win. <br />Chairperson Haake asked if the steering committee was wiii9ng to come up with <br />~ 1 a list of alternatives to Che pro~ect to solve the water problems. Mr. Sargeant <br />~,r,~ replied that he would be willing to go to the lndividual hanes and make recommenda- <br />tions on how they could solve their prablems. Mr. Sargeant also suggested putting <br />in a scaled down test system of the pro~ect before spending all tFiat maney on the <br />