Agenda - Council - 03/13/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' CASE CONSIDER PETITION REGARDING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #99-67 (MISSISSIPPI RIVER STORMWATER SUBDRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 1) By: Steve Jankowski, City Engineer Background: On January 9, 2001 a petition was presented to City Council requesting that the City not construct Phase 2 of the storm sewer and drop the eminent domain action to acquire drainage easement along the border of their properties with the railroad to facilitate this storm sewer. A history of this project was summarized at the January 28, 2001 meeting. At this meeting the Council agreed to table the case, and directed that staff research and report on several issues. The case was again tabled on February 13, 2001 and February 28, 2001. One concern was the construction impact upon a triple row of mature pines which runs for a distance of 370 feet just west of the Dillion homestead, and six black walnut trees located 100 feet west of the pine grove. The construction documents reflect a 30-foot temporary construction easement which would include this entire pine grove (identified as scotch pines) and also six black walnut trees which are highly valued by the property owner. I met with the contractor on site who indicated that he would install the storm sewer without removing any of the pines or walnuts. (A slight alignment change moving the sewer to the north would be required). However since the trench depth would be eight to ten feet deep, some of the root system from the northern most row of pines and walnuts would be impacted. A second issue involved whether the outlet for the regional pond could be placed on the north side of the railroad tracks. In responding to this issue, it should be emphasized that the project currently under construction represents the least costly of five alternatives which were studied. From a technical perspective it does not appear feasible to provide an outlet from the detention pond behind Amcon East (the first multi-tenant building east of Sunfish Lake Blvd.) as an alternative to the project as proposed. Providing an outlet from this pond would require that it be placed over five feet higher than the overflow elevation proposed by the project. A third issue to be addressed was the question of financial assistance for the Phase 2 properties. Specifically, it was questioned whether a deferral procedure could be used like that in special assessments. It must be noted that this project can not be treated as a special assessment. To be considered a special assessment project, the project would have needed to prove benefit to the affected parties which requires clearly defined qualifications. Since this is not a special assessment, but a special levy, it was placed on the property taxes. For the next ten years, the affected parties will pay based on the market value and property classification of their parcel(s). Deferral is not a word that is normally associated with property taxes. The City may wish to consider purchase of the property of relief to the property owners at fair market value, as a measure. -161-