05/20/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr.- 'Gall ic 'squestlollabo';t--t-he-' ci ty , s collecting 'the'asse-ssmenT-lromthe bl.iIYaer~ " Mr. Teitzel explained that the city had no legal way of doing that, that under Charter provisions cost of projects have to be assessed against abutting properties In answer to Council members, he said this situation was not a frequent occurrence, ,normal~y a purchaser is notified by the developer of costs involved. e IMr. Gallic felt the city' should adopt; some procedure whereby prospective buyers 'of properties would be notifjed of liens at the time building permi ts were issued. :'Mr. Teitzel explained that the city would have no record of properties held in 'escrow for a developer. He said the city did have a procedure for trying to :notify people of proposed projects when normal bid procedures were followed, but ,in this instance although the contract was awarded by the city, the normal bid 'procedure was waived and bids handled by the developer.... .f-.I,i.' Council members expressed the op~nion that there "was notillng the C1. ty could do, that it would be a matter to be settled between Mr. Gallic and the developer. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. 3. C.B.543 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Nelson Plat, and sanitary sewer in area between 450 fe~t ,west and 1000 feet west of Bertelsen Road from 11th Avenue to 1000 feet south (73-30) Mr. Teitzel explained that the paving and sewers were. constructed to serve an industrial tract; that the sanitary sewer did not serve the entire subdivision' since a portion of it was already sewered. When petition for the work was initiated the developer was advised of city requirement for storm sewer and that he.would be required to pay for the equivalent of a 24" pipe, standard city policy. The improvements were bid and contract accepted by the developer and the city. Mr. Teitzel added that to the city's knowledge at the t;ime the subdivision was put in, bi~s taken and approved, the developer had no objection to paying for the 24" equivalent'. :. No written protests were received. .Howard Nelson, owner of the property and developer, objected to paying for the 744 feet of storm sewer running along the west property line. He said it served i only to pick. up water from areas not under his ownership. It was his impression \. that the adjacent property would be assessed for a portion of the cost. He dis- played a plot plan and pointed out his understanding of the drainage before and after the installation and the portion of sewer which he felt did not benefit his property. :J iIn answer to Mrs. Campbell, Mr. Teitzel calculated the amount of assessment to 'which Mr. 'Nt:llson objected at about $8,000 or $8,500. He added that the storm :sewer picked up ~ater from two ditches which previously had run over the land. 'However, Mr. Nelson differed, saying he felt the sewer could have taken another '~oute and that the adjoining property being served should have to stand ~ portion 'of the cost. ' - Councilman Murray asked the status of the adjoining property. Mr. Teitzel answered that it; was vacant land and was not assessed. There was no contact with owners of that property when t;he development went in. However, Mr. Nelson at that time agreed to pay for the 24'" equivalent. In addi tion, the sewer re- placed a ditch running to about the middle of Nelson's property. Mr. Nelson, in. answe:o to Mrs. Campbell, said he was paying for 24" of the line serving his i property, but he felt the 744 feet to the south was not to his benefit but tha~ : ,it was put in to serve future development on other properties. f i Councilman Murray asked whether the adjoining property would benefit from the;/ storm sewer and why there was no attempt to assess that side. Mr. Teitzel ' answered that it would be benefited to a certain extentr determination as 'to , how much was difficult because of the flat terrain. Mr. Nelson wanted to ,develop: his property and the city had a signed agreement with him that he would pick up . the cost for 24" of the sewer so no attempt was made to contact anyone else. Although the agreement does specify the payment by Nelson of 24" equivalent it does not specify the amount of pipe which would be installed. But he was aware at time of contract award of the estimated cost of the project. Mr. Nelsov maintained he didn't know how much of the cost would be charged to him until notice of assessment was received. . 'f .. Discussion continued between Council members, City Engineer, and Mr. Nelson with regard to drainage of the properties, Mr. Nelson's contention that the 744-foot extension did not benefit his property and that he did not know until assessment notice how much of the project would be charged to him, agreement on payment of cost of storm sewer between the city and Nelson, etc. Councilman Murray expressed some concern abOut; lack of assessment; against; adjoining property but he felt t;he I situation would be reversed if that charge was made at this time. \ foe, 5(20(74 - 20 .J