Minutes - Council - 06/12/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Case #3: Consider Petition Regarding Improvement Project #99-67 (Mississippi River Storm Water Subdrainage District No. 1) City Administrator Norman stated that on January 9, 2001, a petition was presented to the City Council requesting the City not constrnct Phase II of the storm sewer project in the Mississippi Storm Water Subdrainage District No. 1 and drop eminent domain action to acquire the drainage easement along the border of the properties with the railroad to facilitate this storm drainage. The history of the project was summarized at the January 28, 2001, Council meeting. At that meeting, the Council agreed to table the case and directed staff to research and report on several issues. The City Council discussed the topic again during their meetings of February 13, 27, and March 13, 2001. In March 2001, the petitioners requested to meet with the City Administrator to discuss the storm drainage project in relation to a recently initiated Highway #10 Corridor Study. The intent of the T.H. #10 frontage road and redevelopment study was to develop a concept plan where a future frontage road system would be developed along Highway #10. The petitioners asked for reconsideration of the storm water drainage plan if the concept plan proposed a frontage road along the southerly boundary of their respective properties. The City Administrator agreed with the suggestion and the City Attorney was directed to cease the eminent domain process, which was initiated by Council action in their meeting of July 25, 2000. The T.H. #10 and frontage road and redevelopment study was presented in May 2001, which recommended that the frontage road system be placed on the northerly portion of the petitioners property. A map of the area discussed in the T.H. #10 frontage road and redevelopment study was presented to the Council. With the completion of the frontage road concept now in place, that would not necessitate a change in the storm water drainage plan, staff recommended proceeding with the project. Councihnember Kurak inquired if it was proper for the City to be collecting payments on a project that has not been completed. City Attorney Goodrich replied that Phase I of the project has been completed so the funds that have been collected are being used to pay for that phase. Councilmember Kurak inquired if it was right for the City to collect taxes from citizens when the City has not condemned the needed right-of-way to complete the next phase of the project. City Attorney Goodrich explained that all of the properties in the district pay for the entire project. All property owners are equally responsible for the project even though actual construction has not occurred on a particular property. Councilmember Kurak inquired if this project is being treated the same as if the City were going to do maintenance on a street and the street was not totally completed but yet the fees were already being collected. City Attorney Goodrich replied that all property owners will be benefiting from the project, it is not a special assessment project but an area-wide levy. City Council/June 12, 2001 Page 6 of 19