CC PACKET 12131988 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 as Mr. Feldman's letter. Mr. Feldman said he hadn't claimed the notice 2 hadn't been sent but only that they hadn't gotten it. He told Council- • 3 member Marks that because of that, the Park Board had never had the 4 opportunity of addressing the issue of whether they would have opposed 5 the improvements. 6 Council/Staff Response 7 Mayor Sundland told Mr. Feldman the City had a copy of the agreement 8 he was referring to and recognized it was bound to "generate some 9 discussion, " however, the Council perceived the roadbed had deteriorated 10 to the point where the City had to take action because unquestionably it its condition was adversely affecting the golf course, the cemetery, 12 and the community in general . 13 Councilmember Marks agreed that the poor condition of the roadway was 14 self evident, even to the point where some people had commented that the 15 Boulevard had "the longest set of speed bumps the City had ever had. " 16 Councilmember Enrooth commented that even if the Park Board couldn't 17 recall getting the notice of the hearing, he knew for a fact that the 18 discussions of the improvements between the City and Minneapolis had 19 been carried on continuously since that time and none of those 20 discussions generated a formal objection from the park Board. Mr. 21 Childs agreed, saying the City had dealt with the Park Board relative 22 to construction easements, etc. 23 Mr. Feldman then clarified that the Park Board was not objecting to the 24 City improving the road, but the "bottom line" was that the Park Board 25 just wanted St. Anthony to honor its agreement not to assess them for 26 the improvements. He also expressed concerns that "if the City decided 27 not to honor its agreement regarding assessments, would the City also 28 decide not to honor the condition in the agreement which said the City 29 had to maintain and operate the street in the future?" He told 30 Councilmember Ranallo that if they had received the notice of the first 31 hearing, they would have attended and conveyed the same message about 32 the City honoring its agreement as had been expressed that evening. He 33 said he perceived "we didn't get our day in court, where you might have 34 chosen to work out the assessments in a different manner. " However, 35 the Park Board spokesman indicated, he was not prepared to speak for the 36 nine elected Park Board officials as to whether or not they might have 37 been willing to pay less if they had been present at the hearing on 38 the improvements themselves. 39 Mr. Soth read the conditions in the 1965 agreement, including the one 40 which addressed the maintenance and assessment for improvements on the 41 street. He said his firm had researched case law on the latter point 42 as to the validity of such a provision under which the .City could agree 43 not to asses a piece of property within the City and had concluded that 44 could be done only with "specific statutory authority" , which the City 45 Attorney indicated there had appeared "to have been no such authority 46 in 1965. " He said even if there had been, it would have been necessary 8