Print VersionStay Informed

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
October 22, 2007

The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in special session in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, October 22, 2007 at the hour of 5:30 o’clock p.m. with President Gershman presiding, pursuant to call by President Gershman, which was served on all members of the city council with the exception of Council Members Glassheim and Kreun, who signed the notice prior to the council meeting this evening. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, McNamara, Glassheim, Christensen, Bakken, Kreun, Gershman - 7; absent: none.

ADRESS PROTESTS TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
PROJECTS NOS. 6024 AND 6033 FROM TERRACE
POINTE, LLC

The staff report from the city auditor relating to an item to address protest letters of special assessment projects Nos. 6024 and 6033 from Terrace Pointe, LLC. with recommendation to address protest letters.

Al Grasser, city engineer, reported that Project No. 6024 is a watermain project that started at South 38th Street to Southend Drainway and included 39th Avenue South and Ruemmele Road, and the property in question is Lot 7; and that Project No. 6033 is a paving project in the same area, but 39th was done under a separate project and doesn't involve this property, and that a document of findings had been prepared by the city attorney's office.

Council Member Glassheim questioned why the project was protested and what were the findings of the Special Assessment Commission that rejected their argument. Mr. Grasser stated that the Special Assessment Commission met on October 11, 2007 and specifically found that the property owner's property was within the special assessment district and was specially benefited from the projects in amounts in excess of the assessments against the property; that the Grand Forks city council finds the benefits accruing to the property include the preservation and protection of life, property, public health and public welfare, including but not limited to the provision of potable water and fire protection and improved street access to the property. Also that the city council finds that the Special Assessment Commission spread the assessments in accordance with standard policies and formulas for properties located; and those were the essence of the findings, and they are finding the property is benefiting of the projects and that the benefits exceed the expenses.

Council Member Glassheim asked what is property owner's specific concern and what is response to the concern, that his letter says that they already have something there that could be used and that they didn't need this project in order to get water or sewer. The city auditor reported that was their contention but the city engineer stated that in order for them to get water or sewer from where they were saying, would have to run it through as easements from other properties and that this is the direct benefiting watermain and also the paving. One of the issues they raised was that they do have a holding pond on that property, and the Assessment Commission looked at that and in reality there is still sufficient property to the west of the holding pond that could be developed, and the gentleman at the Assessment Commission hearing stated they could move that holding pond to the west end and have good property facing South 38th Street, and the engineer's agreed with that, that the holding pond can be anywhere on that property that they would want it, and that is why the Assessment Commission looked at as benefit.

Mr. Grasser stated that the property owner was having a problem as to why they needed to pay for watermain on one side when they may have had some access to some private water on the back, but its an issue that is intrinsic with large lots, that as developing these larger lots can be exposed to more potential assessments, and not unusual that may receive multiple benefits.

John Warcup, assistant city attorney, reported that he had prepared some proposed findings, that the property listed on the staff report was on the agenda last week but wasn't formally acted upon, and what now have before you is to make a finding or determination to either uphold or deny the protest that was made by the property owner, and if find that you deny the protest that was made by the property owner, you would also need to confirm the special assessment and benefit found by the Special Assessment Commission, and if so inclined, may adopt the Findings that he has proposed.

Council Member Christensen moved to deny the protest, to uphold the findings of the Special Assessment Commission as to the benefit and that we adopt the proposed Findings. Council Member Brooks seconded the motion. Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Bakken that we adjourn. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor

Approved:
________________________________
Harold A. Gershman, President of City
Council and Acting Mayor