Laserfiche WebLink
<br />could return to the City Manager before voting to see if the City Attorney had any <br />additional concerns about the City Council disclosing his opinion. Mr. Crow said out of <br />respect of the City Manager and City Attorney they may need a conversation first <br />before revealing written information. <br /> <br />Mr. Walker stated that he had spoken to the City Attorney earlier regarding the matter <br />and the City Attorney did not have a problem with his written opinion being released. <br /> <br />The motion to release the City Attorney’s opinion passed unanimously. Mr. Martin then <br />stated his opinion in the open session. <br />Mr. Martin stated that the Missouri Constitution states that government cannot grant <br />public money or benefits to private individuals unless there is corresponding public <br />benefit. He said the question would be is there a public benefit that is attached to the <br />sweeping of private streets? He said private streets refer to private ownership of the <br />street and that occurs when a lot owner owns property that extends to the mid-point of <br />the private street. The street is then private and the private lot owner is the person who <br />is obligated to keep and maintain his portion of the street. Another way it occurs is if <br />the owners of property in a subdivision have transferred the property to subdivision <br />trustees pursuant to subdivision indentures - then the subdivision trustees are then <br />obligated to maintain the private streets. Mr. Martin said that if ownership is directly by <br />the lot owner or indirectly through the subdivision trustees, it is difficult to conceive of a <br />public benefit to essentially help maintain private streets when their private obligations <br />and responsibilities are to do exactly that and those obligations have been in place for a <br />long time. Mr. Martin said another reason for his recommendation is because with any <br />type of public maintenance on private streets, the City runs the risk of common law <br />dedication. He said common law dedication means if you spend any money to improve <br />any private street that can open the door for the private property owner who owns the <br />street to say the City had accepted responsibility for the street and now it would be the <br />City’s problem such as snow plowing, reconstruction, and other repairs. Mr. Martin said <br />that there is no way he could be certain that a court would say that a common law could <br />be applied, but it certainly could open the door for residents to make a claim and <br />embroil the City in litigation, which has happened a couple times in St. Louis County. <br />Mr. Martin said he does not believe sweeping private streets is constitutionally <br />permissible and if you do agree to sweep private streets, it is inviting that possibility of <br />litigation somewhere down the road. <br /> <br />Mr. Price said he tried to learn more about this on the internet and was able to research <br />an indentured agreement of a subdivision in University City. Mr. Price said if someone <br />buys a home in a private subdivision they receive information on the indentures for <br />whatever the responsibility would be included at the time of sale. Mr. Price asked does <br />an individual go into that type of agreement with a signature. <br /> <br />Mr. Martin said generally no. He said when they purchase the property they should <br />have been made aware of the indentures and should be given a copy of the indentures, <br />but it does not necessarily happen. <br /> <br />Mayor Welsch asked how this compared to the City using public funds for grants to <br />private homeowners to fix their homes. She said a resident questioned why it was legal <br />for the City to use public funds for fixing up private homes and not legal for sweeping <br />6 <br /> <br /> <br />