Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />September 23, 1997 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />Public Hearing. continued <br /> <br />Samuelson clarified that McCasheu is being charged the existing bituminous curbing rate <br />which is higher than the existing concrete curbing rate. <br /> <br />Rebelein asked if McCasheu's curbing was repaired or replaced during the recent <br />reconstruction. McCasheu acknowledged that a portion of the curbing was repaired. <br /> <br />Larson asked if staff has found any information regarding this in the archives. Proper <br />said staff did not find documentation regarding any easements on this property. <br />McCasheu believes there is an easement. <br /> <br />Proper said the few lots on 9th St. having both bituminous and concrete curbing were <br />previously assessed for bituminous curbing. Samuelson verified there are two lots which <br />currently have concrete curbing, but are being assessed at the bituminous curbing rate. <br />Proper said those other lots on 9th St. are interpreted in a different manner. <br /> <br />City Attorney Charlie LeFevere understands the methodology used by staff. If the <br />property is assessed with existing concrete curbing, it would be a financial windfall for <br />the property owner. On the other hand, this curbing has been there for quite sometime <br />and has not been replaced. Gunderman verified the assessment cost difference between <br />existing bituminous and existing concrete is about $406. <br /> <br />Rebelein asked if the two lots at the end of the cul-de-sac were assessed for concrete <br />when it was originally installed. Proper said those lots paid 100% of the curbing. <br /> <br />McCasheu purchased the property after the curbing was installed, but he had heard that <br />the land was used as a tradeoff for the curbing cost. <br /> <br />Rebelein asked if the project could be approved with the exception of gathering more <br />information from original property owners to determine the correct assessment rates for <br />the two lots in question. LeFevere added that once the assessment is levied, it becomes <br />more difficult to reduce or amend. However, the resolution could be adopted with the <br />exception of these two properties, and then amended at a later date. <br /> <br />Fulton believes the question is not whether these properties previously paid for <br />bituminous curbing, but if the land trade provided for the cost of concrete curbing. <br />Proper said the cul-de-sac properties were assessed 100 % for the cost of the original <br />concrete curbing. Larson questioned whether those lots paid for McCasheu' s curbing. <br /> <br />LeFevere noted the importance of a fair and equitable City-wide assessment policy. In <br />this case, the assessment being levied is only a fraction of the total project cost and <br />Council is not in any danger of running afoul. Proper said if these two lots were <br />interpreted at the concrete rate the $800 difference would need to be provided from <br />other sources. If Council chooses to change the assessment, Proper suggests that the <br />City pick up that difference to avoid additional staff time involved in recomputing the <br />assessments in the project. If the City did not pick up that amount, then the burden falls <br />upon the other properties being assessed. <br /> <br />Samuelson feels more research is needed regarding the land tradeoff McCasheu noted. <br /> <br />Public Hearing <br /> <br />Assessments for <br />Project 96-1 <br />Project 96-4 <br />Project 97-14 <br />Report 97-214 <br />Resolution 97-067 <br />Resolution 97-068 <br />Resolution 97-069 <br />Resolution 97-070 <br />Resolution 97-071 <br />Resolution 97-072 <br />