09-23-2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

September 23 , 2014 Page 6 of) 0 Mayor Jacobsen asked for additional comments. Lowell Thompson, 1112 27th Avenue NW, reported he read the minutes from April and May concerning this item. He was pleased by the questions being raised by the Council. He stated he was opposed to the creation of the taxing district for several reasons, the first being there was not enough neighborhood buy in. He believed the lack of support was due to fact the pond could not be viewed from the majority of the homes being proposed for inclusion in the taxing district. He reviewed several photos with the Council from his neighborhood with views of the pond. He discussed the amount of City property surrounding the pond and for this reason, did not believe the residents should be responsible for the expense of treating this pond. He did not recommend the Council proceed with taxing 33 homes for living adjacent to the park and pond. Tom Babcook, a resident of New Brighton, opposed the taxing district and fountain. He was in favor of the pond being dredged and expanded in size. He believed that this would assist in mitigating the current algae concerns. Motion by Councilmember Bauman, seconded by Councilmember Jacobsen to close the Public Hearing. 5 Ayes, 0 Nays -Motion Carried The Public Hearing was closed at 8: 19 p.m. Motion by Councilmember Burg, seconded by Councilmember Strub to adopt an Ordinance establishing a Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District. City Attorney LeFevere explained this Ordinance required a 213 's vote in order to be approved. Mayor Jacobsen commented he lived adjacent to a park with a pond . He was weary of taxing homeowners that live adjacent to a City park for the maintenance of the amenities within the City park. Councilmember Jacobsen did not want to see this request set a precedence. He opposed the creation of the proposed taxing district. Councilmember Burg did not support the taxing district either. Councilmember Bauman understood the homeowners wanted the pond aesthetics improved, however, she could not support the taxing district due to the trivial amount that would be needed to treat the pond on a yearly basis when compared to the expense that would be needed to create the district Councilmember Strub respected both sides of the argument regarding the taxing district and was SUIprised by the shift in support that has occurred. He supported the City assisting the neighbors in finding a solution, however, at this time, he could not support the taxing district Councilmember Bauman believed the Council was reevaluating their earlier decision to include 33 properties in the taxing district, and had found this was not a proper direction for the City. Mayor Jacobsen stated he could not support a taxing district for aesthetic pmposes for homeowners surrounding a park. o Ayes, 5 Nays-Motion Failed Motion by Councilmember Burg, seconded by Councilmember Strub to adopt the Resolution ordering Project 13-20, Innsbruck Pond Taxation District as proposed in the Feasibility Study. o Ayes, 5 Nays-Motion Failed