Laserfiche WebLink
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April 20, 2021 <br />Page 11 of 14 <br />as in the future it could be used to address that problem. She does see there could be a <br />potential need for the City to use the easement in the future. <br />Mayor Pro Tern Maloney agreed there might be a City use for the easement in the future. <br />Councilmember Dickinson stated there is no way the alley behind the home will ever be <br />recreated. As such he sees no reasonable way for the easement to be used for utilities in <br />the future. <br />Councilmember Lipton stated he thinks there should be a compelling benefit to the City to <br />give up an easement and he doesn't see that benefit here. He added there may be a City <br />use for that in easement in the future. <br />Councilmember Brown stated he agrees it is hard to anticipate what our future utility <br />needs might be and he agreed with Councilmember Lipton that there may not be a <br />compelling reason for the City to give up the easement. <br />Councilmember Leh stated the lack of information about an immediate need for this <br />easement does not mean it won't be needed. He asked if an immediate need is required <br />to maintain the easement. City Attorney Kelly stated the finding would be that the <br />easement is not needed for a governmental utility purpose, but it does not require the <br />need be immediate. If Council sees there may be a need for it at some point in the future <br />that is sufficient information to deny the request to vacate. <br />Councilmember Leh stated he is inclined to deny the request as the easement may be <br />needed in the future; he would need to see a compelling reason for the City to relinquish <br />the easement for him to vote yes. <br />Councilmember Fahey stated she also sees no compelling reason to approve the <br />vacation. <br />City Attorney Kelly noted this is not a quasi-judicial matter with criteria that need to be <br />met. If Council choses to vacate the easement it would do so for the reason that the <br />easement is no longer needed for current or future public purpose. <br />MOTION: Councilmember Lipton moved to approve Ordinance No. 1806, Mayor Pro Tern <br />Maloney seconded the motion. <br />Mayor Stolzmann closed the public hearing. <br />VOTE: Motion failed on a 6-1 roll call vote; Councilmember Dickinson was the single yes <br />vote. <br />DISCUSSION/DIRECTION — LOUISVILLE PUBLIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS <br />