04/14/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6. C.B.77] - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on lst A.'(dlUe from approxi- mately 1400 feet west of Seneca Road to L200 feet east (74-49) Jack Mattison, ilttorney representing Georgia Pacific, presented a map showing e': sewer line along th.; north side of their property to which connection, was made to serve offices for a distribution center. Balance of the property, he said, was blacktopped and used as' storage area and would have no use for nor benefit from the set"er extended to serve Southern Pacific and Gisborne properties north and south of Seneca Road. lle noted that objections were registered in public hear,ing at time of contract award, that the line was pct"itioncd for venefLt of properties "down ,Zine" from Gccorqi<1 Pilcific and wou)d LxJ or no berwfit to theiralJuttiTH} property. lie saId he assumed authoril;y for assess- ing to a depth of L60 feet came from city ordinance, but that autho:r:ity he 'maintained came from sta'te law providing for assessment ,in te:rms of "henefi t." lie interpreted that: statut(~ to mean that the Council perhaps should .not work from a strict formula For. applyiiJg imprbvemcnt asseSsments, rather the benefit to those properties should he determined and the costs applied accordingly. lie said (7corqia Pacific property WilS not in any WilY improved by this sewer, the property r"il5 aZrea(llj fu,IlIJ served and assessmcnt had hcen pa,id fOl' an cxisting line. IlL: sU'Jgested propcrtrj owners reqrwstill<j the cxtf'IJs,ion and/or not ohjcct,ing to I:ho assessment should hear the cost. lie tlJOI1'lht: cOllsicJera'- t,ion on11} of Uw area to un assess(:'d - l60-foot depth - as a flat formula rathel' than con:,; i der,Jti on of lJenef,i t might constitute a "due process" issue, comparing this ,issue wi th tha t on North Polk Street previousl y discussed. He serious}!} quest:ioncd whether there was valid.ity in the assessment against Georgia Pacific's propcl'ty - fully developed, fully utilized, fUlly served. Mr. Teitzel explained again the policy for assessing property to l60 feet from the propertlf 1 ine when ,i t had access to a sewer. I/e said the assessment e for the! sewer illon<} }st: lIvonu<? was against property that: would he benefited bythut sewer, pro/Jort:l} t:hat: had not been previous,llJ assessc'rj for the sewer a.long the other s ide of L!w proprnt:y. Any flltlln~ ,deve.lopment, on the property abutting 1st lIvenuc would .!lave to connect to the server on lst lIvenuc. Develop- ment of the p:r:operty at t111 s in a manner desired by tile owner would not mean that at some future time it could not be developed differently and that line used. Mr. Mattison said he was challenging that policy, that it assumed benefit merely by the placement of tfte sewer. He suggested deferment of the assessment until such time as the property was developed differently. 'Mr. Gilman thought Mr. Nattison's position unrealistic in that it would appear to preclude development of other property becaus(~ the cost of the l.inepast one property al reilcil} .served wi th anotl1er Line would accrue to the other property. 'I'he propc~rty already served would also have access to the cxtcns,ion and would be able to develop without sharing in the cost. lie further expla,ined the ci ty''s pOli!::yw.ithregard to assessment for the area within l60 feet of a sewer line and how it applied to property abutting 1st 'Avenue line. Nr. Mattison reiterated that state 'statutes specified benefit as the criterion on which to base assessments. Councilman Bradley wondered if benefit to Georgia Pacific could be considered in terms of ~ncrease in tax base by development of properties "down line," creation of jobs, more demand for hous.ing, etc. - intanqih,le henef.its. Mr. Mattison thought that would be of no more benefit to Georgia Pacific than to any other employer in the city. He thought the benefit would have to be peculiar to that particular property. lIe suggested perhaps a" ' the basis for assessmen't should consider total square footage because of . length of Georgia Pacific frontage on 1st Avenue. However, Mr. Teitze1 said the property has the sewer available along any portion of that front- age to a depth of 160 feet.' Mr. Bradley thought Georgia Pacific could afford tlJe assessment, 'but Mr. Mattison compared that to So(::'hern Pacific whose properties the sewer was petitioned to serve. 4/14/75 --38 l~O ~