Minutes - Council - 09/23/2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

for heavy weight in trucks. Mr. Hanson referenced the City's citing of Ace Solid Waste, and noted they had brought it to the City's attention that Ace Solid Waste would be not conforming to using only McKinley Street which is a truck route and designed as such out to Sunfish and out to Round. He suggested that Ace Solid Waste is likely to cut across to use Azurite to cut down the length of the route. He also has concerns with the gravel company using the road and believes that use has increased quite a bit. Mr. Hanson noted that during hearings it was mentioned that the truck traffic would not be on their roads and, therefore, not deteriorate the roads that would result in an assessment to them. However, that has happened. But, surprisingly, the road suffered very little damage as a result with just minor cracking, four cracks along entire length, which were a very easy patch job. Mr. Hanson stated that it seemed like a lot of waste with repaving, sealcoating, and crack repair along Azurite. Especially since they were told about a week before that Azurite would be tom up to put in sewer and water lines for the Azurite/Basalt redevelopment project this spring. He stated this seems like an awful waste to sealcoat a road that will be sealcoated six months later. He stated he provided a copy of his information to the Council for their review. City Attorney Goodrich responded there was no question that an error was made in the original public hearing. The Council was apprised of that situation and been assured this will not happen again in the future and has not happened in the past. He advised that this is the first time that notice has not been sent to this extent. However, the Statute recognizes that sometimes this happens m~d states "failed notice does not invalidate these proceedings." He noted there are minimal assessments ($129 over three years) with $600 to $800 being the highest so he is confident that the court would find benefit in these cases. He noted the Statute states the City cannot assess without benefit to the properties to the extent of the assessment being present. The challenge would be to the jurisdictional aspect, not the benefit aspect. He stated that for the court to find it fail, the judge would have to clearly ignore that section in the Statute referred to earlier. City Attorney Goodrich stated he has reviewed this carefully and does not believe the court would do that. He stated Mr. Hanson's reference is not correct as it relates to the assessment process. He stated the first process is to consider the feasibility study which is where the mailed notice was missed but two legal notices were published in the legal newspaper. The public hearing was held and residents were in attendance. With regard to the other Statute, 429.061, that assessment hearing was properly noticed and given. City Attorney Goodrich recommended the Council proceed. Mayor Gamec stated Mr. Bernie Vevea made comments that the sealcoating was done and now a project is coming forward. He explained that there were no projects pending at the time of the hearings and did not become contingent until after that process. He noted it is on the agenda for consideration tonight. Motion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by Councilmember Elvig, to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, and Councilmembers Cook, Elvig, Kurak, Pearson, Strommen, and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. City Council/September 23, 2003 Page 12 of 41