Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Zimmerman stated that when the project was approved there was an issue with <br />standing water behind Parabody; J.R.'s had totally paved their parking lot and had no place for <br />runoff other than the neighboring site who was looking to develop their property. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated that there is a problem that property owners are paying the majority <br />of the project cost and not receiving the majority of the benefit. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman noted that they could not state that the property owners were not <br />receiving any benefit because the water on their property has to drain some place. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook questioned if the property owners were going to be benefiting in a year <br />from now when the property is officially mapped. <br /> <br />Councihnember Pearson stated that the cost of the project was an undue hardship on the property <br />owners. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson explained that generally assessments are based on benefited <br />properties or how much they contribute. Because the issue was being contested, the Council <br />chose the taxing district as a way to pay for the project. Because some of the properties along <br />Highway #10 are underdeveloped, they are paying a lesser portion of the cost then they would if <br />the property were developed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook replied that the problem is that the property owners are paying for the <br />project for 10 years. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman suggested that the issue of whether or not the project should proceed <br />and how the project is paid for should be separated. He suggested the possibility of buying out <br />some of the property owners. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen requested that staff research if the cost could be distributed <br />differently using TIF Funds. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson explained that currently $43,000 is levied each year to the property <br />owners based on their property values. Currently they have a property owner that is paying for <br />the pipe and needs it for paving his property and he does not have it. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak stated that there are only three property owners left with undeveloped <br />property with the request of Plants N Things and she questioned if it would be possible to defer <br />the cost for those property owners until they would hook-up to the pipe. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman replied that under State Statute 444 deference is not permitted. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak inquired as to how the use of TIF funds would be applied. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session/June 17, 2003 <br /> Page 3 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />