---

It didn’t take long for the Center City Council meeting in an extra session last week, to tie up the loose ends from its June 7 meeting. Council members had a few extra minutes to prepare for the 7 p.m. public hearing on the proposed assessment for the Summit Avenue water main replacement.

During the special meeting that preceded the assessment hearing the council:

•Learned that Cingular Wireless has not contacted City Attorney Blomquist to review a contract to lease the water tower. The city anticipates an income of $1000-$1200 a month from this endeavor. The council directed Blomquist to contact Cingular to see where the offer stands.

•Attorney Blomquist also informed the council that, although he ordered an appraisal by fax for the city lot from Search Appraisal in Forest Lake in April, the company has denied that it received the request. Blomquist said he will resubmit the request by fax and postal service.

•Authorized the purchase of a Xerox m20i copy machine for $1,499.

•Reconsidered Ken Tillges’ application for a variance to build a storage garage within the rear setback of his property at 618 Nelson Court. Following the advice of the city attorney (that variances that contradict the ordinance cannot be granted unless there is proven hardship) the council unanimously denied the request.

However, council directed the zoning administrator to explain in the letter of denial to the applicant that the council is considering revising and updating Center City zoning ordinances to accommodate the newer areas of the city. This revision will address the applicant’s issue to build a storage garage closer to his rear lot line than currently allowed, since there is no purpose for a 35-foot setback in newer developments that do not have alleys. The council is also considering adding size regulations for outbuildings to the ordinance. It was noted that zoning revisions take a minimum of 60 days to implement.

•Promptly at 6:30 Mayor Wolcott opened the public hearing to consider assessing the five parcel owners whose properties benefitted from the water main replacement on Summit Avenue in spring of 2004. The total cost of the replacement was $62,310, City Engineer Les Mateffy reported. At previous meetings the council had directed him to propose several scenarios for assessing the eight parcels abutting the improvement.

“The total assessable footage is 593 feet,” Matteffy explained as he distributed a table outlining six options for calculating the amount owed by each property owner. Three options showed the property owners responsible for 100 percent of the project cost. Three options showed the city absorbing 30 percent of the cost.

Assuming the property owners would want the city to absorb some of the cost, Mayor Wolcott asked those attending the hearing how they would prefer the remaining assessment; by linear foot, by parcel, or by a 50/50 split combination of the amount due by linear footage and parcel. Under the 30 percent plan, the property owners would divide up the remaining $43,617 of the project cost. (Property owners may pay the assessment over 15 years at 6 percent interest.)

Dan Moody was the first to speak and commented that he felt the city should be 100 percent responsible for the cost. It was his opinion that this replacement was a maintenance issue, and other cities pay the full amount of a maintenance project, he said. Other property owners agreed that the value of their property is not “improved” by an expected service such as water. One of the criteria for assessing an improvement is that it benefits abutting property owners, Attorney Blomquist had explained in the introduction of the hearing.

Several property owners stated that when they purchased their properties they were not aware that the water line along Summit Avenue was 20 years older than the rest of the city‚s lines. No one told them it was experiencing much higher repair rates than other lines in the city and would eventually fail.

Mayor Wolcott gave some history of the downtown water supply, explaining that the Summit Avenue water main was only 20 years old when city water service was improved in 1965. With a life expectancy of 75 years, the Summit line was not replaced, nor assessed to the property owners along Summit Avenue in 1965.

Attorney Blomquist commented that cities generally pay for repairs and improvements but there comes a point in time when replacement is necessary, and that is generally assessed, since replacement is improvement.

Nancy Batcheler owns two parcels and would be assessed more under the “parcel” method listed on the table than if the linear footage calculation was used. She felt the assessment for water main was too steep and with having to close her business while the improvement was being made the project was a hardship. Batcheler said the city council needs to plan for such things and come up with a policy for how those repairs are financed. The council responded that improvement of the Summit Avenue water main had been on the table for several years and grant applications had been made, but not awarded, to offset the cost of the improvement. When numerous breaks occurred in the main in 2004, the issue was addressed under emergency guidelines. Property owners were present at emergency and monthly meetings that were called at that time.

In response to Batcheler’s complaint that the repair took too long, and a question from the audience about the bidding process, Mateffy responded that the city received three bids and contracted with the lowest estimate from Jensen Backhoe Service. Jensen’s bid was $10,000 less than the next bid, and the project was completed within 30 days.

Moody wondered if it wasn’t rather odd to give property owners choices on how to assess. Mateffy responded that a council can choose to assess any way it wants with the goal to assess as fairly as possible. “Meetings such as this public hearing may be complicated, but they allow property owners to provide input and assure a fair assessment,” Mayor Wolcott added while the audience studied the options.

Gerald Moe commented that although his assessment is lower by the parcel calculation, he feels the lineal footage method is more fair.

The hour-long discussion had only considered which calculation method to use with the city contributing 30 percent of the project cost when Moody commented that he thought council member Mike Hilber had proposed that the city pay 50 percent of the project cost at a meeting in the spring of 2004.

After a short discussion about what was really said at those meetings, Hilber moved that the city pay half of the assessment under the linear footage calculation.

Council member Lloyd Vetter, who came on the council in August 2004, commented that he had no way of knowing what the council had discussed, but the 20 percent increase was new on the table, and without time to study the figures, he wondered if the city could absorb the cost.

Attorney Blomquist asked that the council be aware that this decision may set a precedent for what the city is responsible for in the future when a project is assessed.

At 7:45 p.m. the public hearing concluded with the council voting unanimously to pay half of the project cost and assess the remaining $31,155 to the five property owners under the linear footage calculation.

---