Council Minutes
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
October 29, 1998
The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in special session in the council chambers in City Hall on Thursday, October 29, 1998 at the hour of 12:00 noon with Mayor Owens presiding, pursuant to call by Mayor Owens, which was served on all members on October 22, 1998: Document No. 7646.1 - Notice.
Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Lucke, Hamerlik, Bouley, Carpenter, Klave, Beyer, Martinson - 8; absent: Council Members Polovitz, Glassheim, Lunak, Babinchak, Bakken, Hafner - 6.
HOLD PUBLIC HEARING; AND APPROVE ASSESSMENTS
SEWER PROJECT NO. 4440, DISTRICT NO. 386
The city auditor reported that the city council had at their meeting on October 19, 1998 continued the public hearing on the assessments as certified by the Special Assessment Commission and the approval and confirmation of these assessments by the Commission on Project No. 4440, Sewer (Southend Drainway) District No. 386, in the amount of $929,500.00, as protests were presented on October 19, 1998.
Mayor Owens opened the public hearing.
Ken Vein, city engineer, reported that Al Grasser, assistant city engineer, would explain the mechanics of the special assessment process, clarify the drainage and development concept, why the project was implemented in the way that it was, why it was the most cost effective and the real benefit of this project to this area and to the entire southend redevelopment.
Mr. Grasser, assistant city engineer, reviewed the special assessment process; and then reviewed drainage and development concepts of how the city drainage system works. He presented a map of the storm sewer service area with each colored area a storm sewer discharge or collection system. He stated that a lot of the discharges are along the river, storm sewer outfalls with sluice gates. He said the size of the drainage area varies from very small to pretty large and as you move away from the natural drainage corridor such as the river and the coulee we do end up having to get into situations where we have to pump the storm sewer and there are several other areas in the interior of the city that are storm sewer pumping stations. He showed a situation on the Belmont Coulee where the cheapest way to create the storm sewer system is to discharge into the natural waterways. Mr. Grasser said some of the history on the project goes back to a study created in 1979. He said the Corps of Engineers sponsored a study by Barr Engineering out of Minneapolis to look at the Urban Area Master Plan, a tool we use to figure out the best way to provide storm drainage for the city as it grows. He presented a map from the Master Plan that shows throughout the perimeter area of the city various drainage alternatives, pumping stations and pipe sizes and identifies directions where things are supposed to be flowing. He said what they identified back then was an open drain along 47th Avenue South which became the basis of all our followup after that. He said cost-wise (1979 dollars), they identified about $26M worth of storm sewer improvements to address these areas, with trunk sewer. He said in recognizing the southerly growth of the city they brought this to city council on several different occasions because they recognized in order for the city to grow south there had to be a way of addressing the storm sewer and the storm open drain was the most cost-effective way to treat it as a whole. He reported that in 1992 some money was budgeted for the preliminary engineering and design on the Southend Drainway, and that the initial study, reports and public hearings were held in August through October of 1993. He said there were some discussions analyzing the most cost effective method of delivering the drainage as far as where the drainway should specifically be located, and also incorporating public comments they received at the time they created the routing. He said the original routing for the drainway was scheduled to go through Ulland Park, however when they started analyzing the cost of the concrete pipes to deliver to the drainway, etc. they recognized it was less expensive to provide an open drain than it was to try to carry all these flows through pipes. He said in essence what they are really creating here, since Mother Nature didn’t create any coulees to discharge into, they are creating something akin to that. He said they had some discussions whether to hold water or not and decided we should try to keep it dry to keep the nuisance of mosquitoes down. He said he also wanted to point out in a general concept the City policy has been for a new development to pay for the cost of developing their own infrastructure thereby alleviating that burden as much as possible from the general taxpayers of the city and that was a concept that was followed with the drainway development.
Mr. Grasser discussed time elements for the project; that reports and public hearing on the project occurred in 1993, from then to 1996 they did preliminary engineering and land acquisition. He reported it took approx. a year and a half to acquire the land on the east side of Belmont Road and during that time the project stood still; that in August, 1996 they talked with Public Service regarding tapping fee calculations. He stated that one of the things the committee struggled with was the fact that the cost of the drainway is front end loaded into the outlet. He said a lot of the cost involved in the entire project were to do the energy dissipation structure and to put in the big box culverts along 52nd so we didn’t have to remove homes. He went on to say the Committee recognized it was probably unreasonable to assess those costs to that first area so they developed a concept where they tried to calculate the entire cost of delivering to the entire service area and that tended to evenly distribute all of those costs so they weren’t front end loaded and the people at the back would get a much reduced rate. Mr. Grasser said on February 10, 1997 (dates given are committee dates) the district was created, on February 24 we approved plans and specs, March 28 the bids were opened and March 31, 1997 was recommendation to award. He said because of the flood, construction proceeded to late 1997 and finished up in 1998. He said the special assessment hearing occurred in September of this year and the Special Assessment Commission did meet and do some revisions of benefit distribution within the district. He said the only area within the city limits at the time this was created were the areas along the river including Belmont Road, River’s Edge and Country View. He said the rest of the area was the tapping fee area and those fees would be carried by the City until such time as they are actually tied into the drainway at which point they pay the tapping fee cost. He said Phase I was from the river to Washington, Phase II was from Washington to the Interstate, Phase 3 is planned to come in off of Phase 2 just west of Washington and that will go to the Interstate also. He said when they envisioned the concept of Phase 3 they added additional areas benefiting in the future and the cost was distributed over a larger area which reduced the cost for everybody proportionately.
Mr. Grasser said they worked up some scenarios which aren’t 100% precise, that they took the areas and what happens if we allow the areas along the river to develop themselves and serve their own needs, and when they did that they identified River’s Edge as one subdivision that abuts the river and could address itself independently. He said they also have Country View and some unplatted areas that abut the river directly, and when they calculated roughly the pipe sizes they are just calculating the trunk sizes and not calculating all the individual small pipes under the presumption the small pipe layout is going to be very similar no matter how you handle the major trunk discharges, so this isn’t total cost, just the trunk cost. He said in River’s Edge the cost per square foot was calculated at about .25/sf, Country View about .19/sf and if Belmont had to do it independently would be about .86/sf and that is net area. He said they also looked at areas west of Belmont Road, if they ended up having to put in a pumping station and also accounted for their trunk collection systems, those costs ended up being about .41/sf. He said they did a similar situation east of Belmont Road – they did not need a pumping station – could do it all by gravity and their cost ended up being about .21/sf. He said if you start taking a larger picture of things and if took River’s Edge, Country View and Belmont Road and said those people were one group and are utilizing one larger discharge pipe and the cost of the entire area is about .25/sf. He said most of those people saw a real benefit and a reduction in their ultimate cost by starting to cooperate. He said essentially that is what happens with the Southend Drainway. He went on to say what was done is they looked at the entire benefiting area of the development and when we factored all the costs through the whole development including all the project development costs, the digging, the dirt, the pipes, the discharge, everything they’re working at about .11/sf to serve the storm sewer within this whole area and you are seeing that reduction in individual cost by everybody cooperatively working together on serving the common need – the cost dropped dramatically. He said they are at .11/sf for the trunk benefit and added to that are the individual storm sewers to get into the drainway, that will be an additional cost – this is the trunk cost.
Council Member Martinson asked if the entire project would come in at $14.2M and over how many assessment districts this will be spread . Mr. Grasser stated that is the estimated cost now; that the rest of these areas won’t be special assessment districts, but City will pick them up as tapping fees, and explained the process; that when an individual property owner from that area asks for a building permit there will be a tapping fee due before they can issue that permit so rather than creating a district and taking in subdivisions per se, they will be collected on an individual basis, residential, commercial, the school district, park district, anybody within this area. Council Member Martinson questioned if this will impact the neighborhoods from Belmont west to Chestnut, from 32nd Avenue South to the tune of about $902,000. Mr. Grasser said he believes that is what is in the actual special assessment and the reason for that is, as he understands it, is those areas are in the city limits and needs to be collected by special assessment. Council Member Martinson asked if it is fair to say that the Southend Drainway becomes a part of the flood control relief for the entire city, is it designed to take overland water from 1-29 all the way east and as far west as south of Menard’s. Mr. Grasser said the project will take some of that water, it does have the ability to, that they talked about the public hearings and developments going on in 1993, in 1993 they hadn’t had any overland flooding , that overland flooding wasn’t an issue with the project and the project still needed to be put in. He said the costs of the project as far as calculating depth and size and extent of the drainway is all calculated based on what it’s going to take to provide the interior drainage. Mr. Grasser said it can take some water from the interstate ditch; and stated that much of this is farmland right now and when they start getting on the periphery it becomes hard to identify what water is actually coming in. He also pointed out that you probably will take some water on an interim basis – there are two things, long term that will probably not put a lot of water into the drainway, if any at all. He said the Corps of Engineers through the entire flood control project is going to be running an interceptor ditch on the west side of the Interstate and that is going to pick up almost all that water on the west side, the other thing that happens is through the flood mitigation projects they did put a larger pipe across 32nd, that’s the reason 32nd was seeing flooding is the pipe underneath there was too small – it was sized smaller than the pipes crossing the interstate and that was done several years ago with the DOT, so after calculations of the size of pipes coming across the interstate, they put in a larger pipe to take flow to the English Coulee. Council Member Martinson stated that water coming overland into the Southend Drainway would help the entire city to take off some flood waters prior to the majority of the water coming from the south. Mr. Grasser said the overland flows coming through are so small as compared to the flow of the river, the drainway was calculated based on a rainfall event, typically the runoff events are much slower and have less peaks, so when you’re talking a thawing event, he would presume they’re not talking more than a couple hundred feet per second coming off of this, 200 cfs in relation to 135,000 cfs coming through, didn’t know that they could measure it. Mr. Martinson questioned that if the Southend Drainway isn’t that beneficial why did the City build it; and Mr. Grasser stated it was to provide the most cost-effective way of draining that whole area south of 32nd Avenue. South, and that without some mechanism of addressing the basic utilities (storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water), the area south of 32nd can’t develop. He said he was very uncomfortable with some of the development that went on, that they are literally running water uphill in some of those developments and the whole south end, Burger King, Walmart, Rex TV were recognized that eventually that water has to go into the Southend Drainway because the storm sewer on 32nd was not designed to take that water in its developed state, because as you develop you create more runoff. It was noted that those businesses south of 32nd will be in another special assessment district or tapping fees they will pay a proportionate share. Mr. Marhula asked Mr. Grasser if he had any documents to present to the Council; Mr. Grasser stated he did not have copies of the hearing minutes, per se other than there are some minutes from one of the hearings during Public Service Committee and have not had the chance to review them all.
Mayor Owens asked if anyone on the council or in the audience wished to be heard.
C.T. Marhula, 5124 Belmont Rd., said his presentation will be divided into four parts, a brief review of the Anderson and Julian Subdivision annexations, additional information that will support their view that promises were made, and a recommended solution.
Mr. Marhula said from an Anderson Subdivision meeting held at Schroeder Junior High on April 26, 1983, Belmont Road construction will provide a drain to the east which would serve as a storm sewer outlet to the subdivision. He said it was a very controversial issue at that time and he said that was promise number one, that Anderson can go east into 47th. He stated there was a memo from Frank Orthmeyer to (former council member) Tom Hagness on August 11, 1983, sanitary storm, etc., etc., directly north of 47th will be bid – upon completion of these projects the necessary systems will be installed to serve the proposed annexed area.
Mr. Marhula reviewed several letters and minutes of special assessment and public service meetings, stating that they feel that promise was made to them.
Mr. Marhula reviewed several maps signifying water flow, that Legal Drain #4 which is three miles south of 32nd Avenue South, and indicated that at 41st or 42nd the water will split and go to the Southend Drainway, and water is going in his backyard and his neighbor’s backyard so there is a significant impact on them from this split. He stated he and his wife looked at various residences with hopes of purchasing in various areas of the city, including 3336 Desert Star Lane, 1306 Kuster Circle, one on Boyd Drive, 3549 15th Av. S., also 325 Terrace, and that this project will help every one of those houses, those houses will be safer once this drainway is built in. He also reviewed a conversation he had with Frank Orthmeyer (former city engineer) on October 25 re. the Southend Drainway, that to the best of his recollection the purpose of the Southend Drainway was to divert water away from the Belmont Coulee.
Mr. Marhula then distributed maps of drainage pattern of the project and reviewed with council; and also stated that the Barr report stated that “…this report presents two drainage plans designed to minimize urban flooding in Grand Forks and to serve as a basis for an overall flood control plan for the City for the year 2030. The flood insurance study indicates backwater from the Red River as a primary flood threat along the coulee within the city limits. However the 1979 spring flood show that floods in the English Coulee caused by local runoff from areas tributary to the coulee pose an even greater flood threat.” “Because the English Coulee is the primary drainage channel in the study area and because it has special aesthetic value, its maintenance and protection are major concerns. To divert runoff away from the English Coulee and main channel, both options incorporating sub watershed drainage pattern different from what that’s now existing.” Mr. Marhula stated that basically there is an A and B option, and they are stating that they’re taking water out of two natural watershed districts and they’re shoving it into our back yards through the southend drainage way. He stated this is confirmed on page 32, Option A which is the open ditch and which Mr. Grasser said did become the Southend Drainway project, requires alteration of existing drainage patterns to provide relief in two major problem areas, the English Coulee main channel and the area south of 32nd between Highway 81 and the Red River; Mr. Marhula stated he assumes that is the Belmont Coulee.”
Mr. Marhula stated that on page 40 of the Barr study the recommended drainage plan states that “…the primary objective of the plan to decrease flood levees on the English Coulee can be substantially fulfilled by construction of the 47th Avenue ditch.” ; that the primary objective of this plan was to decrease flood levels on the English Coulee . He stated he believes the following facts have been established: The Anderson residents were told, in fact it was certified by the city engineer, that they had adequate storm sewer in existence when they were annexed; and since review of minutes there was strong indication that the expectation was there would be no assessment on this project. The third item, the study, is ultimate proof that the project is what we have always said it is, a drainage plan designed to minimize urban flooding in Grand Forks and serve as a base for the overall flood control plan for the City to the year 2030; that most of them, especially those on Belmont, were dry in 1997, as well as some who live on the edge or River’s Crest. He suggested that to remove water from two separate watersheds, place that water in our back yards is a questionable practice at best. But to ask us to pay for the increased risk of flood to our homes that we see as no benefit is not a path the City should follow. He stated there was some concern about being placed in the 100-year floodplain, that would cause some to pay insurance.
Mr. Marhula stated his recommendations are the Anderson Addition, River’s Edge Addition, the McIntyre Addition should be zeroed out. There probably should be a reduction for Country View and Shadyridge Estates. The land and tapping areas from Chestnut Street west to Washington should be significantly reduced and the rest of the land may need some reduction taken into consideration what is the true nature of this project, and that project is basically a flood relief project for the entire Grand Forks, specifically for homes along the Belmont Coulee and in the Johnson Addition where the English Coulee runs through and others in the north Grand Forks where the English Coulee has impact and flooding. He stated that conclude his remarks.
Mayor Owens asked Mr. Marhula if he wished for any of the material he presented to be part of the permanent record, to submit them at this time. He said he would sort though his papers (but did not file any papers).
Kirk Tingum, attorney with Caldis, Tingum and Grinolds, LTD., said they represent some of the landowners in the Shadyridge Third Addition and some of the unplatted property located adjacent to that. He said they are also of the opinion that this project should be spread over a much larger area than has been done, and he would like to talk about the unique situation of the people in Shadyridge Addition. He said Shadyridge is along the river and there have been several maps showing a proposal on where the dike is going to be in this area or may be; that when those proposals became public the character of this land changed and the people in the Shadyridge Addition basically lost the use of their land – this was land that was going to be developed for lots and houses, that nobody wanted to purchase this property, nobody wanted to build on the property because of the possibility that it might be on the wet side of the dike, so the people who owned this property no longer had a use for the property; that they couldn’t use it the way they wanted to, in fact they couldn’t use it for basically anything. Mr. Tingum said special assessments are supposed to be based on a benefit to the property, that these people were getting no benefit from their own land until the City can come up with a definite indication of where the dike is going to be and that may be several years from now. He said that special assessments are to be based on a benefit to the property, not a future speculative benefit but a present benefit to the property. Mr. Tingum submitted a letter containing his comments for the record.
Mr. Laffen said he would like to respond to the last issue about pieces of property that are in the assessment district that might potentially have a dike running through them or be on the wrong side of a dike because they also needed direction on that issue and asked Mr. Swanson to help them with that with future projects. He said their current approach is that they looked at properties as if there is not going to be a dike because they don't have anything yet that tells them where the dike will be, who actually is in front of it or behind it or that it actually will happen, so our current approach is to assess every property as if there is no dike and when and if a property needs to be purchased by the City for a dike project you will also have to purchase back whatever assessments happen to have been put on that from now to then. He said they cannot let those projects go on speculation, as they do not have a mechanism to go back and reassess a special assessment. He said in response to Mr. Marhula’s discussion about flood control versus storm water project, they have always been under the impression that this is a storm water project, that only city engineering can respond to whether it's a flood issue or a storm water project and that they have assessed this as a storm water project.
Mr. Vein said Mr. Marhula has brought up a lot of information, but there are a couple things that he can say are absolute fact and can be substantiated through the engineering calculations they did when they designed the Southend Drainway. He said it was designed as a storm water collection system and it was absolutely not designed at all as a flood control project; that to design this as a flood control project would have involved massive extensive surveying and looking at the entire drainage area to establish and design that and that absolutely was not done. He said it will it benefit in the short term by alleviating some of the drainage problems that they’ve had out by I-29, but long term what is going to protect the area is the flood protection project that is currently under design – that will have a tie back levee that is going to go all the way to and past interstate on the Merrifield Road or County Drain 4 just on the north side. He said it also will have an extension of the English Coulee Diversion which will be on the west side of Interstate which will collect some of the stormwater that will come from the exterior of the city,. He said we did not comprehend a flood control project at that time; and that he wanted to make it very clear and it can be substantiated with the calculations that we used as to the design for the Southend Drainway – it is a storm water collection system designed to drain the water within the drainage areas Mr. Grasser has shown and that is the area that will receive the benefit as a storm water collection system.
Council Member Lucke asked if we had any aid or contributions that is going to reduce the net assessment on this project. Mr. Vein responded that after the flood we were looking for help from almost any funding source that we could to help fund this project. He said we were not able to receive any of those funds and went to the State Revolving Loan Fund as the means for financing this project.
Gordon Moen, 5004 Belmont, stated that Mr. Marhula is speaking for a lot of individuals. He said he moved to Belmont Road in 1985 and questioned why Woodland Circle and property east of Belmont were not included in this assessment and also in regards to the south of the drainway on Chestnut if they are in fact draining into this drainway at this time are they still going into the drain on 47th and why they wouldn’t be assessed for it. He said he is half way between 47th and the Southend Drainway and his natural flow has always been to the north and it is still flowing that way at this time. He said they have never been made aware that if they didn’t put in storm sewer that wouldn’t be available to them at 47th. He said for some reason 47th is full so they are telling us we have to drain to the south when we do organize and put in our gutter and he is comfortable with that. He said he is willing to pay for his storm sewer at the time it is put in – but said he does not see the benefit as a homeowner of the southend drainway and said there are others that feel the same way. He said he is very disappointed in the answer, that they were dry during the flood and that’s important to them as homeowners and the Southend Drainway has definitely put an impact on them thinking about future flood, where that water is going to go and they are in the direct path of that and there is a lot of concern from the people down there.
Mr. Vein said people deserve an answer to their questions and we can either answer them publicly or meet with residents later. Mayor Owens said she preferred they be answered now for the permanent record. Mr. Grasser said they had to go through a preliminary design to determine where the future water was going to go. He said they did try to maximize how much water can be taken on the 47th Avenue storm sewer because that is a storm sewer that is existing and was put in through another project – the paving of Belmont Road. He said the high point on the roadway in the center of Belmont Road and what will happen is a set of inlets likely in the neighborhood of Woodland Circle, the water will drain from the high point down into the inlets which will drain into 47th Avenue South. He said the water they calculate will be served by those inlets was left out of this district because that water will end up in 47th as best as we can project at this time. He said there will be a second set of inlets, probably somewhere south of 47th Avenue; and the drainage as it exists today includes a couple lots that drain down Adams Drive that has created a lot of problems. He stated that the City is doing a storm sewer improvement in that area using CDBG funds and they will end up putting in a culvert to pick that water up so it isn’t a drainage problem any more. He said when curb and gutter and storm sewer are put in some of the water that is now flowing north to 47th will be picked up and directed into the Southend Drainway.
In response to questions the city auditor said in looking at the assessments, they are going to vary considerably in the area of the 5500 block of Belmont Road , probably talking an assessment of $2,530 spread over a 20-year period; and gave varying examples ending up with the Desiree Drive area being roughly $1,000. He also stated that if there is an area that is reduced in a special assessment district, it is added onto other areas in the district.
Mr. Moen said his questions still were not answered, that the water runs north past Woodland Circle through a culvert that is a lot smaller than what they have on Belmont at this time, that some people have benefit and some do not. He said apparently the record showed when they were annexed into the city that they had adequate storm drainage at that time and now that has been taken away. He said there seem to be a lot of problems that keep compounding and the answers are not straightforward and asked that everyone be treated fairly.
Ed James, 5118 Belmont Road, expressed support for Mr. Marhula’s research, agreed that the water drains north, and that they are being assessed based on idea that in the future they are going to have storm sewers which will drain into the drainway. He stated that is speculation and doesn’t feel it’s fair to be assessed at this time. He also stated that they have been and are currently paying water bills every month for maintenance on the drainway under Belmont at 47th.
Mayor Owens closed the public hearing.
Howard Swanson, city attorney, advised that the mayor’s and council’s role today in reviewing this special assessment is that they are acting as an appellate body, they are considering action that previously has been taken by their Special Assessment Commission. He advised that they do not have available to them any opportunity to change the district or to add property to the district, that they cannot remove property from the district but can determine property within the district is not benefited. He also stated that the amount that is to be assessed is not subject to change at this time; that they may increase or diminish any individual assessment within the district except that the total amount of the aggregated assessment shall not be changed; that if you decrease an assessment you must increase another assessment within the same district.
Mr. Swanson also reported that with respect to Shadyridge it is his opinion that the policies and basis acted upon by the Commission are appropriate, that if at a future time the levee is constructed and does impact upon the project, the Council and the Commission would have an opportunity to review it at that time. He stated that the law in North Dakota does not depend upon a determination of benefit of developed property, property that is undeveloped may be assessed the same as developed property. He stated that the council has in essence three options: 1) that if project is assessed, it must be done by November 1, 1998 in order to be assessed on the next tax statement; 2) delay action to next year’s assessment if alternatively determined how you will pay for the cost of the project in the interim; or 3) approve the assessments as confirmed by the Special Assessment Commission without change or alter the determination of assessments within the district provided that the total aggregated remains the same; that assessments cannot exceed the determined benefit. Mr. Swanson advised that if the council does not approve the special assessments prior to November 1, they will not have that option available
In response to questions Mr. Swanson said as a legal matter you would not have to determine what alternative financing you might utilize, but as a practical matter if you do not approve the special assessment prior to November 1 you will not have that option available to you. He said it’s a complicated issue because of the adopted 1998 budget and the adopted 1999 budget – they would run into the budget law as to whether you have additional unanticipated revenues that you can increase your 1999 budget to pay for the expenditures. He said legally with respect to the assessment you have to act to approve the assessment by November 1 if you wish for that to appear on the 1998 tax statement. The question was also raised as to whether they would have between now and November 1 to come up with an alternate plan to pay for it if we delay it today. Mr. Swanson said as a practical matter he thinks if you don’t do a special assessment of some nature the council is obligated to determine how you will fund the bill that they cannot spread a special assessment outside of the district.
Mr. Swanson also stated that the Special Assessment Commission has already determined numerically the benefit of this project for each parcel contained within the district and council does not have the ability to exceed that numerical determination of benefit that they have set unless you determine they made an error in any particular lot in their determination of benefit. Mr. Swanson said the tapping area is not within the same assessment district. Mr. Martinson stated it was his understanding that once the assessment district is set the neighborhood has no voice in it. Mr. Swanson said that was absolutely wrong; because in most cases the city council is the body that makes a decision., and in the case of a special assessment the actual decision-making body is in fact the Special Assessment Commission, but that the council determines the boundaries of the district and the prior council established the district in this case and the Commission then has the obligation of determining what benefits, if any, a particular property will receive from the project. He said the council gives the Commission the amount that has to be assessed within the district so the true place of debate on a philosophical nature is in the Commission and the role here is to determine whether or not the Commission made any errors in their calculations of benefit and their determination of benefit and their spreading of the assessment. He stated that the council’s role today is to determine if that there is an error, not in concept, not in principle, but in actual assessment and determination of benefits.
Mr. Swanson stated if you are inclined to assess any portion of this project on the 1998 tax statement which will be issued in December of 1998 and due in 1999, you must act before November 1, 1998 and given the date today that gives you only one business day other than today to act.
Council Member Carpenter stated there has been a lot of discussion whether this is a flood control project or a storm water drainage project; that he has sat on and participated in the Capital Improvements Program Committee for a long time and this plan was purely a storm water drainage, not flood mitigation project. He said this was a storm water plan, this was what it was intended to do, not to control flooding in the city of Grand Forks. He said there was debate as to how it should be funded and it was determined that it should be funded by special assessments, not the stormwater fee which one gentleman referred to that everybody in the city pays for maintenance and the Southend Drainway maintenance will end up being paid in the same way – through that stormwater fee. He reiterated this was a south end drainage project benefit to the south end property owners – that’s where the cost should be assessed. He stated that as he understands the Special Assessment Commission gave a 50% credit to the Belmont area because of things that have been done and taken place in the past, that the Commission has done its work, has considered the benefits and made some of those determinations, and that we need to confirm and certify the special assessments they have recommended. Council Member Carpenter moved that these assessments be and are hereby accepted and confirmed, and that they be levied against the property benefited in 20 annual installments of principal, together with interest on the unpaid balance yearly, to be collected with other taxes by the proper authorities. Council Member Brooks seconded the motion.
Ray LeClerc, 5616 Belmont Road, stated he wasn’t aware that we are talking today about the special assessment district and not the tapping fee district, and asked if there will be a public hearing later for the larger area. Mr. Swanson stated that they cannot act today to alter the tapping fee district because the matter on the agenda is the confirmation of the special assessment district and they are two separate districts. He said the Commission did have a role in establishing overall distribution of assessments but the tapping fee is not before this body today. Mr. LeClerc asked when that would be acted upon by the Council. Mr. Swanson said he did not know but that some of that has already been done, that the calculation was approved nearly two years ago on how the tapping fee would be calculated so that portion of the issue has already been decided. He said if there are other issues Mr. LeClerc is referring to, he is not familiar with them, they would be outside the scope of this item. Mr. LeClerc questioned the determining of benefits in the tapping fee area and when that determination would be made; Mr. Swanson stated he did not have an answer for that.
Mr. Vein said there were questions raised that some people didn’t think they had adequate answers to and that staff was willing to answer those verbally or to put them down in writing and respond in writing to try to answer every question that anybody has pertaining to this project.
Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Lucke, Hamerlik, Bouley, Carpenter, Klave, Beyer - 7, voting “nay”: Council Member Martinson - 1. Mayor Owens declared the motion carried.
ADJOURN
It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Bouley that we do now adjourn. Carried 8 votes affirmative.
Respectfully submitted,
John M. Schmisek, City Auditor
Approved:
___________________________________
Patricia A. Owens, Mayor