Council Minutes
17275
October 16, 2000
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
October 16, 2000
The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in its regular session in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, October 16, 2000 at the hour of 7:30 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun - 11; absent: Council Members Lunak, Martinson - 2.
Mayor Brown announced that anyone wishing to speak to any item may do so by being recognized prior to a vote being taken on the matter, stated that the meeting was being televised. Mayor Brown stated that we would like to wish Sam Martinson a speedy recovery.
FLOOD REPORT
Al Grasser, acting city engineer, reported that they have received the alignment refinement design document report on October 5, 2000 from the Corps of Engineers which finalizes the dike alignment, that report did indicate some changes from the 1998 general re-evaluation report, that on October 13 Mr. Grotte sent a memo to council members outlining the changes that were included and that they are currently reviewing that report in detail to review changes, that to date they have not identified any additional homes or businesses that would need to be purchased; the major change they did see in the report because of the updated computer program that the computer has done and the re-evaluation they are doing along the entire Red River Valley basically from the North Dakota border to Lake Travers, they did identify that from the GRR report the north end dike elevations are going to be about one foot lower than the original report, but south end elevations will have a rise of 1.3 feet in the dike elevations. He stated that this doesn’t result in any additional taking of real estate or properties, and one of the reasons for that is that in general the total of the slope to account for the higher dike is to move the toe riverward instead of landward, and because of geotechnical stability reasons they have to bump it out to the landward side but kept to about 5 to 6 feet and that allows it to go higher without encroaching on an additional properties; the hydraulics that were explained in the report are very complicated and that he cannot go through and update the council on the details of hydraulics but if they would like, could have the Corps of Engineers come in and explain it at another committee meeting if they desire more detail. Information.
APPROVE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 18, 2000
Typewritten copies of the minutes of the adjourned meeting of the city council held on Monday, September 18, 2000 were presented and read. Council Member Bjerke noted that in roll call that Council Member Martinson was present. It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Babinchak that the minutes be approved as corrected. Carried 11 votes affirmative.
CONSIDER MATTER OF PROPOSED REVISED CITY
COUNCIL MEETING PROCEDURES AND APPROVAL
PROCESS AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE
Richard Warne, administrative coordinator, reported proposals for revising the city council meeting procedures and approval process, council directed that be referred to each of the four committees, which they have, committees met and last Friday the committee chairs along with several members of the city council met to discuss the findings and recommendations of the committees, and reported and recommended that we pass for first reading of the ordinance that would implement these new procedures.
Council Member Gershman, president of the council, reported on behalf of the four committee chairs, stated that the staff will bring forward recommendations for combining and eliminating many of the other 34 committees, and that is going to happen now, as recommendation out of public safety committee, and that will happen first if procedures pass. He stated that the second thing that will happen will be to begin delegating administrative matters to the staff based on the changes suggested by the administrative coordinator, department heads and council committees prior to the council becoming the committee of the whole December 1.
Mr. Swanson reviewed changes in the proposed ordinance, that there are three essential changes to what was previously presented: on page 1, section 2-0101, which previously said first, second, third and fourth Monday for meetings and now reflects would be the first and third, to provide the council with the ability to adjourn into other meetings, including committee of the whole, on page 3, subsection 27, dealing with adjourned meetings language has been added providing that the council may adjourn to a work session, informal session or committee of the whole and may take final action upon any matter at the work session, informal session or committee of the whole unless otherwise restricted by law, that you can provide preliminary approval and introduction of an ordinance at those meetings, however, you cannot have final approval on an ordinance on the same day as preliminary approval or introduction occurred. He stated that the last change is essentially somewhat redundant, on page 4, under Section 2-0302 dealing with public meetings, again they clarified that the council can adjourn to the various forms of organizational meetings and committee of the whole meetings and may take action at those meetings as well. He stated that the fact that they are meeting in a committee of the whole or in some other informal method does not eliminate the requirement for published agendas, published meeting notices, etc. but allows council to be as a committee of the whole but still do the informal discussions, preliminary discussion and if body feels that appropriate action should be taken they have that flexibility.
Council Member Hamerlik questioned the matter on page 3, that if the council adjourns to a work session - that the council may take final action upon any matter at such work session, and asked if that should be recess rather than adjourn, then have another meeting and publication of a date. Mr. Swanson stated that they could recess to a time and date, which under the ND Open Records Law and Open Meetings law may allow you to avoid some of the additional notices, as a practical matter the City’s policy has been to give those notices, whether recess or adjourn not sure makes a great deal of difference. Council Member Hamerlik stated he has a question that if they recess or adjourn to a committee of the whole and a topic comes up that hasn’t been on the agenda, could rush something through without public notice; and would seem that on page 3 should restrict any action to what was on the agenda or else come up with items and take action without it ever being published. Mr. Swanson stated this is broad enough to allow council to do that, if the council wishes to place restrictions upon itself would be appropriate, that on section 2-0302, subpart 2) they have actually deleted the limitation on what action you can take at that meeting.
COUNCIL MEMBER GLASSHEIM REPORTED
PRESENT
Council Member Hamerlik stated that the council has not wanted something on their desks to take action, but has concern that if they can’t restrict under subsection (27) can’t restrict to what was on the agenda.
Mr. Swanson stated that in the past the Code has limited or restricted items that were not on the agenda and if declared controversial could not be acted upon. Mr. Swanson stated that the present Code would allow the council to act upon an issue not appearing on the agenda provided it is not declared controversial by any individual member of the council, those requirements have been deleted in this draft and if the council inclined to continue in that manner he would include that language in the ordinance. Mr. Warne agreed to that and staff’s position is that they are comfortable with that, and if include that restriction are fine with that.
Council Member Hamerlik asked a procedural question, that this ordinance should have come as recommendation from a committee, then introduced and first reading.
Council Member Babinchak moved to send this to the finance committee and brought back at a council meeting; Council Member Christensen seconded the motion. Carried 12 votes affirmative.
Mr. Swanson stated that he interpreted the discussion earlier on the agenda as being a general consensus and agreement that they wanted some restriction on agenda items and he will provide a draft to the committee and council members which would include the agenda restrictions.
Council Member Hamerlik called for the question. Carried 12 votes affirmative.
Upon voice vote on the question, submitting to finance, the motion carried 12 votes affirmative.
Mr. Warne stated that in their report they presented 33 items that could be delegated and handled administratively and have taken input from all four committees as well as staff, and propose to make the appropriate changes and run them back through all four committees so that everyone would have an opportunity to look at those again before adoption. He stated that in talking with the city attorney they could by council approval any or all the proposed delegations to the staff by resolution and not by ordinance; and run them through all four committees one more time, make sure everybody’s at consensus and then ready for approval on the November 6 meeting.
WELCOME STUDENTS AND REPRESENTATIVES FROM
AWANO, JAPAN
Mayor Brown welcomed the Sister City Student Exchange Program students and representatives of Awano, Japan, the chief planner of Awano Town Hall and a gardener who will be helping us with the Japanese garden they are giving to us.
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING
OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND ENACT SECTION
RE. WIRELESS COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS AND
TOWERS
An ordinance entitled “An ordinance amending specific sections of Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code and enacting a new section relating to wireless communication antennas and towers”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on August 7, 2000, and which public hearing had been continued until this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading.
Mayor Brown called for the public hearing. There were no comments.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reported having considered the matter of the request from the Planning Department for final approval of an ordinance to amend the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Section 18-0204(2) Definitions related to wireless communication facilities, amending Section 18-0206 A-1 (Limited Development) District, amending Section 18-0208 R-1 (Single Family Residence) District, amending Section 180-02-0 R-2 (One and Two Family Residence) District, Section 18-0210 R-3 (Multiple Family residence-Medium Density) District, Section 18-0211 R-4 (Multiple Family Residence, High Density) District, Section 18-0212 R-5 (mobile Home Residence) District, Section 18-0213 R-M (Manufactured Home Residence) District, Section 18-0214 B-1 (Limited Business) District, Section 18-0215 B-2 (Shopping Center) District, Section 18-0216 B-3 (General Business) District, Section 18-0217 B-4 (Central Business) District, Section 18-0218 I-1 (Light Industrial) District, Section 18-0221 U-D (University) District, Section 18-0303 Height, Section 18-0310.1 relating to wireless communication towers and antennas, and recommended tabling the request until the November 1, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
It was moved by Council Member Bjerke and seconded by Council Member Hamerlik to approve the recommendation and to continue the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance to November 6, 2000. Carried 12 votes affirmative.
APPROVE FINAL PLAT; AND ADOPT ORDINANCE
NO. 3862, AMENDING STREET AND HIGHWAY PLAN
TO INCLUDE PUBLIC R/W SHOWN AS DEDICATED
ON THE PLAT OF JOHNSON-RUSTAD ADDITION
An ordinance entitled “An ordinance to amend the Street and Highway Plan of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to include the public rights of way shown as dedicated on the plat of Johnson-Rustad Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on September 18, 2000 and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.
The deputy city auditor reported that the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held on this matter this evening and further that to date no protests or grievances had been filed with her office.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.
The deputy city auditor reported that the Planning and Zoning Commission had reported having considered the matter of request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Gene A. and Kathryn A. Johnson for final approval of the plat of Johnson-Rustad Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota (located on the south side of 27th Avenue North between Mill Road and North Washington Street), and recommended final approval subject to special conditions shown on or attached to the review copy and passage of the ordinance amending the Street and Highway Map. The recommendation was moved and seconded by Council Member Babinchak and Council Member Kreun. Carried 12 votes affirmative.
Upon call for the question of adoption of the ordinance and upon roll call vote the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun - 12; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3863, AMENDING ZONING
MAP TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE I-2 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL)
DISTRICT ALL OF JOHNSON-RUSTD ADDITION
An ordinance entitled “An ordinance to amend the Zoning Map of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to rezone and exclude from the A-1 (Limited Development) District and include within the I-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, all of Johnson-Rustad Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on September 18, 2000 and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.
The deputy city auditor reported that the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held on this matter this evening and further that to date no protests or grievances had been
filed with her office.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.
The deputy city auditor reported that the Planning and Zoning Commission had reported having considered the matter of the request from Gene Johnson for final approval of an ordinance to amend the Zoning Map to exclude from the A-1 (Limited Development) District and to include within the I-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, all of Johnson-Rustad Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota (located on the south side of 27th Avenue North between Mill Road and North Washington Street), and recommended final approval and passage of the ordinance amending the zoning map. The recommendation was moved and seconded by Council Member Kreun and Council Member Brooks. Carried 12 votes affirmative.
Upon call for the question of adoption of the ordinance and upon roll call vote the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun - 12; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.
APPROVE FINAL PLAT; AND ADOPT ORDINANCE
NO. 3864, AMENDING STREET AND HGIHWAY PLAN
TO INCLUDE PUBLIC R/W SHOWN AS DEDICATED ON
THE PLAT OF OAKWOOD SECOND ADDITION
An ordinance entitled “An ordinance to amend the Street and Highway Plan of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to include the public rights of way shown as dedicated on the plat of Oakwood Second Addition (previously referred to as Telpro Addition) to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on September 18, 2000 and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.
The deputy city auditor reported that the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held on this matter this evening and further that to date no protests or grievances had been filed with her office.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.
The deputy city auditor reported that the Planning and Zoning Commission had reported having considered the matter of the request from Gary L. Thompson on behalf of Larry Young, for final approval of the Oakwood Second Addition (previously referred to as Telpro Addition), Grand Forks, ND, being a part of the SW Quarter (lying westerly of I-29 right of way) of Section 32, Township 151 North, Range 50 West from the 5th Principal Meridian, (located at 7151 South 42nd Street), and recommended final approval subject to special conditions shown on or attached to the review copy and passage of the ordinance amending the Street and Highway Map. The recommendation was moved and seconded by Council Member Kreun and Council Member Babinchak. Carried 12 votes affirmative.
Upon call for the question of adoption of the ordinance and upon roll call vote the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun - 12; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.
APPROVE APPLICATION FOR MOVING PERMIT TO
MOVE BUILDING TO 802 OAK STREET
The deputy city auditor reported that the notice of public hearing on the application by Easter Seals to move a building from 502 Plum Avenue to 802 Oak Street to be used as a residence, had been published and posted as required.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.
Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered the application for moving permits by Easter Seals to move building from 502 Plum Avenue to 802 Oak Street, and recommended to approve the application for moving permit, subject to the public hearing.
It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Glassheim that this recommendation be and is hereby approved and further that Easter Seals be and are hereby authorized to move the building subject to meeting conditions established. Carried 12 votes affirmative.
APPROVE APPLICATION FOR MOVING PERMIT TO
MOVE BUILDING TO 807 SOUTH 9TH STREET
The deputy city auditor reported that the notice of public hearing on the application by Easter Seals to move a building from 1108 Lanark to 807 South 9th Street to be used as a residence, had been published and posted as required.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.
Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered the application for moving permits by Easter Seals to move building from 1108 Lanark to 807 South 9th Street, and recommended to approve the application for moving permit, subject to the public hearing.
It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Glassheim that this recommendation be and is hereby approved and further that Easter Seals be and are hereby authorized to move the building subject to meeting conditions established. Carried 12 votes affirmative.
APPROVE APPLICATION FOR MOVING PERMIT TO
MOVE BUILDING TO 608 CHERRY STREET
The deputy city auditor reported that the notice of public hearing on the application by Easter Seals to move a building from 1105 Lanark to 608 Cherry Street to be used as a residence, had been published and posted as required.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.
Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered the application for moving permits by Easter Seals to move building from 1105 Lanark to 608 Cherry Street, and recommended to approve the application for moving permit, subject to the public hearing.
It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Glassheim that this recommendation be and is hereby approved and further that Easter Seals be and are hereby authorized to move the building subject to meeting conditions established. Carried 12 votes affirmative.
APPROVE APPLICATION FOR MOVING PERMIT TO
MOVE BUILDING TO 905 OAK STREET
The deputy city auditor reported that the notice of public hearing on the application by Easter Seals to move a building from 1117 Lanark to 905 Oak Street, to be used as a residence, had been published and posted as required.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.
Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered the application for moving permits by Easter Seals to move building from 1117 Lanark to 905 Oak Street, and recommended to approve the application for moving permit, subject to the public hearing.
It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Glassheim that this recommendation be and is hereby approved and further that Easter Seals be and are hereby authorized to move the building subject to meeting conditions established. Carried 12 votes affirmative.
RETURN AGENDA ITEMS TO COMMITTEE
Mayor Brown asked if there were any items to be returned to committee. Council Members Christensen and Burke asked that the matter of property disposition, request from GF Historic Preservation Commission be returned to committee.
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING ON ASSESSMENTS FOR
PARKING RAMP PROJECT NO. 4796 TO OCTOBER 23, 2000
The deputy city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the Special Assessment Commission and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the Commission on Project No. 4796, Parking Ramp District No. 11, in the amount of $1,730,000.00, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been published as required, and further that several protests had been filed with the auditor’s office.
Letters of protest had been received from Michael Conneran, Jr. for assessments on 2 and 4 South 3rd Street; Dakota Property Management for assessments on 2 North 3rd Street and 214 DeMers Avenue; Dan Samson, Dacotah Building, Inc. and LTD Properties, Inc.; and Todd Nedberg, Tiger Management for assessments on 311-317 DeMers Avenue.
The deputy city auditor reported that the Special Assessment Commission held a meeting on September 25, 2000 and reviewed the parking ramp assessment and made an adjustment to the benefit of this project, after the adjustment the allocation of assessments are calculated as follows: private property, $1,058,173.31; Growth Fund, $79,629.31; Corporate Center, $558,419.09; and City of Grand Forks, $34,078.29, for a total of $1,730,300.00. That they know this assessment is still a burden to the property owners and in an attempt to give council members options to alleviate some of this burden they have put together two work sheets for review. Both work sheets contain an allocation of funds generated under the previous parking ramp project to directly buy down the original assessment of the private property owners; the first work sheet only allocates the above funding source which is parking ramp project special funds. The total assessment amount is $1,730,300.00, with deduction of prior ramp funds $411,426.48, leaving assessment amount to be assessed from private properties of $646,746.83; the second work sheet allocates funding from the parking lot operational funds to additionally reduce annual assessments for private property by 100% for year 2002 to 2004, and that means for the first five years annual assessment allocated for private property will be picked up by parking lot operational funds, and in the sixth year of the assessment the property owner will be paying 100% of the annual assessment; this approach is an attempt to allow time for the area to develop and solidify its hold on our local economy; this plan will reduce private property owners assessment by 55% because originally it was $1,058,173.31 and by taking these two options it will reduce down to $476,540.00 which is about 55% reduction.
Mayor Brown asked if there was anyone in the audience who had comments to make on these assessments.
The following individuals appeared and protested special assessments.
Henry Howe, property owner in the downtown parking ramp assessment district, stated he wasn’t sure what was happening with the assessments and what the effects were , but didn’t want to waive his right to protest.
Dan Samson, 100 North 3rd Street, Dacotah Building and LTD Properties, protested assessments for the parking ramp, that they have adequate parking for the Dacotah and Lander Buildings, and do not receive any benefit from the ramp,
Todd Nedberg, Tiger Management and partner in LTD Properties, protested the assessments to his property for the parking ramp.
Council Member Glassheim stated that without proper parking downtown there will be less traffic and less value in all properties, but the perception that there is adequate parking in an area has something to do with whether people will go there at all, and have to look at the overall impact.
Council Member Christensen stated that the leases for Corporate Center provide that the specials levied against the properties are passed on pro rata to the tenants.
Council Member Christensen asked to be excused from voting on Project No. 4796; it was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Brooks to allow Council Member Christensen to abstain from voting on that project. Carried 12 votes affirmative.
Council Member Gershman asked to be excused from voting on Project No. 4796 because of a conflict; it was moved so moved by Council Member Christensen and Council Member Babinchak. Carried 12 votes affirmative.
Council Member Gershman suggested that the Mayor, Mr. Warne and the Special Assessment Commission get together, and that the council could review the projects that are done early in the year or come up with a better system. He stated that when an issue such as the parking ramp comes up, that everyone knew is was going to be controversial, and would like to see them get to a point where they could identify solutions to a problem prior to the presentation of a special assessment.
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ASSESSMENT OF
VARIOUS PROJECTS TO OCTOBER 23, 2000
The deputy city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the Special Assessment Commission and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the Commission on the following projects in the amounts as shown, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been published as required, and that protests or grievances had been filed with the auditor’s office.
Type
Project
District
Assessment
Years of Installments
Sanitary Sewer 4838.1 399.1 $ 241,854.00 14
Storm Sewer 4669.3 386.3 1,463,723.00 20
Storm Sewer 4939.0 401 42,243.00 15
Storm Sewer 4939.1 401.1 175,257.00 15
Street Paving 4807.0 564 416,600.00 19
Street Paving 4940.0 570 321,700.00 19
Watermain 4706.1 260.1 318,700.00 14
Watermain 4839.1 264.1 102,900.00 14
Watermain 4919.1 265.1 85,932.98 14
Mayor Brown asked if there was anyone in the audience who had comments to make on these assessments, and the following individuals commented.
Grant Shaft, 2850 24th Avenue South, attorney representing Uselinger Brothers Farm, stated they have met regarding 7 special assessment projects with the city auditor’s office and with the Special Assessment Commission meeting the end of September, and then referred to this meeting. He stated they have the 8 projects relating to his client’s and the issue they have been discussing with the auditor’s office is detailed and involves a review of the maps of the projects and breakdown of the various projects and how they are split between the Park District and a building that was built out, etc. and stated it might be beneficial for the council if this could be referred down to finance as these projects relate to his client. Mr. Swanson stated that the timing under the North Dakota statute for special assessments requires that the council approve and certify any assessments by November 1, and the next scheduled meeting of the council is November 6, short of the council having a special meeting to consider any special assessment projects that wouldn’t appear to be sufficient time to do that. Mr. Shaft stated that the issue they have is not a protest of the assessments per se but a question as to whether the assessments should be assessed now or whether they should have been a tapping fee. Mr. Swanson stated that would be a discretionary matter for the council to determine whether they wish to alter something from the special assessment to a tapping fee; that if they waited beyond November 1, they would not have the option to approve the special assessments and difficulty for the council is whether they would have adequate funds budgeted for the year 2001 for the carrying costs for the projects would be. It was also noted that these projects have been bonded. Mr. Swanson stated that if the council were to certify a particular project for special assessment and if in the future decided not to continue special assessments, whether there were additional funds available or chose to convert it to a tapping fee, that is a possibility, but would still be needing to address the cash flow stream. Mr. Swanson stated he would advise the council to continue with the public hearing
and that there may be other property owners that have issues with regard to the same projects, and following the close of the public hearing, take whatever actions you deem appropriate.
Mr. Shaft noted the projects they are protesting are: Drainway Project 4669.3, Paving Project No. 4940.0, Storm Sewer Project No. 4939.0, Storm Sewer Project No. 4939.1, Watermain Project No. 4839.1, Watermain Project No. 4919.1, and Sanitary Sewer Project No. 4838.1.
Ms. Leila Olson, 814 Stanford Road, stated she had mailed to the council members a letter from her son in law and to represent him at tonight’s meeting, and protested the special assessments on Watermain Project 4706.1, Paving Project No. 4807.1, and Drainway Project 4669.3. She stated that the first point of protest is that they do not believe that the property in Curran’s First Subdivision is legally annexed to the city because the letter sent to James Peter Curran and others, the owners of the property, did not include Curran’s First Subdivision property, it specifically excluded it, that Curran’s First Subdivision property is located between 40th and 44th Avenues South and the Stadter’s Resubdivision property south of 44th Avenue South was the property they were being notified was being annexed, and did receive a map of the property along with it, but quite illegible and assumed that they were being notified because their property was adjacent to the Stadter’s property. She stated that the Stadter’s property was being annexed by petition of the landowner and her son in law found out August 1, 2000 that their property was already annexed to the city, was annexed in May, 1998. She stated that even if the property is annexed, they want to protest the special assessments because the 7 acres that are annexed have a total yearly income (agriculture reserve lands) of less than $400 and the amount of the yearly assessments would be over $10,000; that they are assessing the farmland as though it were developed commercially; and that there are no benefits to the farmland of any of these projects, that the property has never had a drainage problem, that the drainway was put in to benefit property on 32nd Avenue and near the Interstate. She stated property could benefit 15-20 years down the road, that there is no market for that land, and they are not considering the economic impact on the family members. She stated she believes there should be tapping fees on all this land because it is not ready to be taxed as commercial property.
Yvonne Curran Jacobson, stated that she and her brothers have the property on the corner of 47th Avenue South and Washington Street (40 acres) and wish to protest the huge assessment that’s assigned to that property; that they would like to have tapping fees so that when property developed then it can be assessed.
Dean Curran, 3503 Belmont Road, protested the assessments on a watermain project on the NW Quarter of the NW Quarter of Section 28, approx. $48,000, that this is assessed against farmland; that the development in that area will not be for 10-15 years, that the School District built their school and developed their property, that it’s the interim costs that they object to, and asked if this could be put on a tapping fee for assessments when the property benefits. (Project No. 4706)
David Beste, 1550 47th Avenue South, Stone’s Mobile Radio, protested Drainway Project No. 4669.3, that his property does not benefit, that he will pay the assessments but would like his property to drain to the drainway.
There was some discussion relative to the tapping fees. Mr. Grasser stated that the tapping fee essentially is a mechanism in place that allows us to extend infrastructure into areas outside the city limits, because if outside the city limits cannot special assess a project; that the City had started using tapping fees because of the problem of how to extend utilities out into the rural areas when a development needs utilities. He stated a tapping fee area is created and the funding for the infrastructure comes out of City funds (utility rates) segregated to the appropriate rate - sanitary sewer against sewer rates, etc. and the adjacent property that will benefit from the use of those utilities does not pay any special assessments or fees at the time of the project but fees collected when the property develops; that the engineering department certifies the tapping fees based on land that is platted when they come in for development, but in the interim the City carries the carrying cost; that there are millions of dollars of tapping fees now and the city auditor was expressing some concern about the effects on our utility rates. He also noted that there is some deprecation on the infrastructure and if the property doesn’t develop there is depreciation, and the City doesn’t recoup all of the capital costs.
Mr. Swanson stated that special assessments do not take into consideration the present day value of the land nor does it take in the present day use of the land, it looks at what the improvement is and what potential the improvement provides to the land; the proposal that is before the council on all of these, your role is somewhat limited, the Special Assessment Commission has determined the benefits, and if you reduce one particular parcel you must respread whatever the reduction is over the balance or another parcel; that you have to work with the total determination of benefit and assessment that the Commission has given you. He stated that the council would not have the ability to alter the actual determination of benefits.
Council Member Hamerlik suggested that we hold a special council meeting next Monday evening, followed by a committee of the whole to discuss the matter of meetings, and rather than going to all four committees to hear what needs to be done; and moved that we continue the public hearing on the following projects: - Drainway Project No. 4669.3, Paving Project No. 4940; Storm Sewer Project No. 4939; Storm Sewer Project No. 4939.1; Watermain Project No. 4839.1; Watermain Project No. 4919.1, and Sanitary Sewer Project No. 4838.1; Watermain Project No. 4706.1, Paving Project 4807; and Parking Ramp Project No. 4796; to a special council meeting next Monday evening to take up the matter of those assessments that were protested this evening, and that be the only item on the agenda; and if appropriate follow it with a committee of the whole meeting. Council Member Brooks seconded. Carried 12 votes affirmative.
APPROVE ASSESSMENTS ON VARIOUS PROJECTS
It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Christensen to divide the question between those that have been protested and those that haven’t. Carried 12 votes affirmative.
Council Member Hamerlik moved to approve those items other than were protested tonight be approved; Council Member Brooks seconded the motion. Carried 12 votes affirmative.
The deputy city auditor presented and read the assessments as made by the Special Assessment Commission and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the Commission on the following projects in the amounts as shown, and reported that the legal notice to the public that these assessments would be presented to the city council at this meeting had been published as required, and further that no protests or grievances had been filed with the auditor’s office.
Type
Project
District
Assessment
Years of Installments
Sanitary Sewer 4242.2 355.2 $ 32,034.00 10
Sanitary Sewer 4915.0 408 77,000.00 15
Sanitary Sewer 4991.0 402 114,600.00 15
Storm Sewer 4582.0 380 73,900.00 15
Storm Sewer 4707.1 393.1 372,700.00 14
Storm Sewer 4993.0 403 42,000.00 15
Storm Sewer 5004.0 405 68,000.00 15
Alley Paving 4930.0 571 56,000.00 19
Alley Paving 5119.0 577 44,500.00 20
Street Paving 4225.2 560 326,650.00 19
Street Paving 4522.1 554.1 30,988.00 18
Street Paving 4589.0 561 177,600.00 19
Street Paving 4714.0 562 1,173,092.00 19
Street Paving 5019.0 568 71,700.00 19
Street Paving 5030.0 572 87,500.00 19
Street Lighting 5006.0 127 20,600.00 10
Street Lighting 5007.0 128 44,960.00 10
Street Lighting 5011.0 131 9,800.00 10