08/10/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

situation during construction, he said both the City and DEQ would be monitoring the problem, although they could not guarantee there would e not be a problem. He said the City would not be watering the streets, but they would attempt to monitor and control the dust problem as much as possible. Gertrude Petersen, 2761 Bailey Lane, said Mr. Allen had answered many of the questions she had regarding this assessment project. She under- stood unless access was cut from her property onto the street, she would not have to pay; Mr. Allen assured her that was correct. She noted having a respiratory problem aggravated by the dust, and said she was going to have to move out of her home for her health1s sake. She did not feel a person should have to move from his or her home because of city construction. The second item with persons in the audience wishing to testify was Item 7 (Job 1390), storm sewer within Annamidaz Subdivision. Mr. Allen said this was being paid 100 percent by the developer for installation of the storm sewer and recommended awarding to the low builder, Wildish Construction Company. Spence Alpert, Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Robert Conrad, owners of Lot 2, said his clients had been informed Tuesday, by word of mouth, that they would be paying $5,200 for this assessment. He requested delay with proceeding until all property owners could be notified. He said they would like to contest the letting of bid at this time. Mr. Allen said that records showed that at the time of petition, notifi- e cation went to the title owner who was the developer. He said if the property had changed hands, it would still be subject to the lien, unless the developer agreed to pay the assessment. He said the City requires subdividers to make improvements and would recommend Council to comply with the subdivision ordinance. Mr. Alpert replied the City would not be making the subdivider comply, but would be attaching a lien where the present owner would be required to comply. Mr. Allen said that was a legitimate objection. Mayor Keller wondered if there were any way the two could work the problem out. Mr. Allen said he saw no way except the whole process could be started over again, which would delay the improvement project. He said the problem seemed to be the City records showed the developer owning 100 percent of the property. Mr. Lieuallen wondered if the developer were required to notify the property owner of the lien. Ms. Benjamin replied she did not really know, but the question involved whether the City had followed provisions of the Code. It appeared the City had not violated those provisions if they gave notice to the title owner. Mr. Delay said it seemed to be a purely civil matter outside of City operations. Mr. Allen noted April 12 the City had contacted the owner I who, at that time, was the developer. He said the problem might be resolved by sending letters to the current property owners and delaying e 8/10/77--7 ~O7