02/24/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

John Willener protested the assessment for the stub. He advised of damage to his property in the course of the construction project - filling of a drainage' ... ditch'which resulted in flooding property formerly used for garden spot, killing ~ two fruit trees, broken concrete in his driveway. He said he did not plan to develop the property for which the stub was extended, that the stub w~ not requested, and that he knew nothing of it until receipt of the assessment notice. He rejected the staff recollunendation for deferred assessment on the basis that it would appear as a lien aqainst his property; he wanted no liens or exceptions to his title to the property. Mr. Willener stated he could force the removal of fill from the drainage ditch which resulted in flooding his property. In response to Councilman Williams, Mr. Teitzel said that recording the assess- ment,as a lien against the property would be the only way any future owner would be made aware of the pending'charge for the service stub; the amount of the assessment - $258.75 - would appear on the records as a lien. Assistant Manager Martin explained that although appearance of the assessment on the title would indicate a potential obligation if staff recommendation was accepted, the lien would be effective only in the event the property was developed a~d the sewer stub used. Mr. Willener countered that many people would not understand that and construe it as an unpaid lien against the property, neither could a loan be obtained using the property as security with such a lien attached. When asked by Mr. Williams which he would prefer - paying the assessment or deferring it pending use of the stub - Mr. Willener said he would rather pay'it. However, he said he- wouldn't and that he c'i,:~n't like litigation. M~. Teitzel said there was the alternative of the city s ricking up the assessment in its cost for the project. At Councilwoman Beal r s request, fir. Tei tzel explained the drainage si tuation - __ the ditch behind Mr. 'Wiilener's prc?erty was filled by the contractor since a storm sewer on Norkenzie was const,rL'cted to take the drainage previously going to that ditch. The contractor. he said, was responsible for contacting the property owner prior to going 0;1 the property to place the fiLl, and it was the city's understanding th~t pe~wission had been given. He said the city could require the qontractor (Wilcish) to restore proper drainage on the prop- erty if it was not left in a manner acceptable to the property owner. Map of the properties serveQ L~ the construction project was displayed and discussin continued with regard to location of the flooded area, the stub extension, etc., with coinme.nt from Councilman Williams that it would not appear fair to the rest of the comnunity's taxpayers to pick up the cost of the service to Mr. willener's property t-Ihen at some time in the future there was the possibility tbat it would .be put to use. Discussion turned to loss of property corners during construction. Dan French, 2090 Norkenzie Road, requested help in locating corner markers so he could in- stall a fence at the proper location. He also noted problems with flooding of his property from improper ,drainage. And Donald Page, 1815 Norkenzie Road, expressed concerns about placement of the initial lift on water and mud rather than the normal base " renegotiation of the project contract and whether renego- tiation resulted in higher costs passed on to the property owners, and hazard created for bike riders because of failure to repaint bike path lines after com- pletion of the paving. Neither Mr. French nor Mr. Page disputed the assessment itsp7f. . In discussion with panel members, it was agreed city engineering staff would work with Mr. French to locate as nearly as possible hisp:operty corner by es- 2/24/75 - 22 90