by Dave DeMars
news@thenewsleaders.com
During one of three public hearings, the Sauk Rapids City Council heard the displeasure of several citizens in reference to how storm-sewer assessments were being made on residents who lived on Fourth Avenue North – and the extent of those assessments.
The public hearing was held to consider approval of assessment rolls 407 (unpaid water bills), 408 (for grass-cutting and maintenance), 409 (for Eighth Street North, Second Street North and Third Avenue North improvements) and 410 (for water-service repair). Costs associated with these four assessment areas will be added onto the tax bills of the properties and charged a 3.1-percent interest rate. Unpaid water bills attributed to the various properties amounted to $41,003.73. Assessments related to grass-cutting amounted to $120. Assessments for curb-and-gutter and storm sewer along Eighth Street North, Second Street and Third Avenue North amounted to $213,999.72. Water-service repair (410) assessments were not disclosed but will be charged to each property owner.
Rich Macdonald and his wife, Tracy, who reside at 103 Fourth Ave. N., questioned why they were being assessed when the 409 assessment dealt with Third Avenue N.
“We are being assessed for storm sewer,” Macdonald said. “We live on Fourth Avenue North, and I believe there are eight parcels that are being assessed for storm sewer. We haven’t been able to detect any creation of a storm sewer on Fourth Avenue North.”
Macdonald referenced an e-mail sent by a former council member Paul Weber to the council asking for clarification on the construction of the Third Avenue North project and the assessments that would be levied.
“The Third Avenue North portion of the project does not include any storm-sewer improvements,” Macdonald read aloud, quoting a feasibility report presented to the council on Oct. 26, 2015. “Let me repeat, ‘does not include any storm sewer improvements.’ ”
He referenced the feasibility report that said the “Up the Hill” project (Second Street North) did include storm-sewer catch basins at the intersection of Third Avenue North and Second Street North, and there are storm sewers on First Street North but that drainage on Third Avenue North would remain generally as it had in the past.
“So the question is how did we get assessed for something that wasn’t ever done?” Macdonald asked.
It was left to Sauk Rapids City Engineer Terry Wotzka to answer the question. He explained in determining the storm-sewer assessment, the city looks to the areas that drain to the improvements. In this case, even though the Macdonald property is physically located on Fourth Street, it drains downhill to Third Avenue.
Wotzka went on to further explain that so long as the property drained to the street, and even though there was no necessity to install services mid-block, so long as the property drained down the street to the storm sewer, property owners all along the route would be assessed so the city could recapture the cost of installing the storm sewers. The storm sewer is a benefit to the property owners and because of that, they should pay their fair share. In this instance, Fourth Avenue drains down to Third Avenue and Second Street.
“We don’t necessarily put storm sewer on every block, but we look at it as an area-wide benefit,” Wotzka said.
Wotzka explained to the mayor and council that costs for work done on Second Avenue and First Street had not been fully recovered and that the proper way to look at the issue is who derived benefit from it.
Mayor Brad Gunderson interjected there was benefit from the drainage of water from the property. Macdonald asserted the improvements were done years ago, but the council was simply trying to pay for work done at some other time. Gunderson asked if there were others in the audience to speak to the matter.
Bruce Thrall, a neighbor to Macdonald, spoke to the council echoing Macdonald’s objection to the assessment.
“I don’t see where I’m benefiting from this at all,” Thrall said. “All I am getting is a bill out of this. And now you are telling us you are not even going to do anything for that, so when you do, who is going to be billed for that?”
Thrall said the assessment cost on his property would be $2,500, and that his property value did not go up that much and was concerned he would be assessed again if work were done on Fourth Avenue.
Two other speakers questioned the assessment. One questioned whether he had been notified correctly since he had just taken ownership of the property. It was suggested notification of pending assessments should have been made known at the property closing and that he should check with the closing company in that regard.
Ruth Moeller said she believed she was being assessed too much in comparison with her neighbor whom she believed had a similar-sized lot, but she was shown the service provided and size of the two lots were quite different. After the hearing was closed and during discussion, council member Kurt Hunstiger questioned whether the time frame for the assessment might not be extended so it was not such a hardship.
Upon learning it was possible to extend the assessment time frame, Hunstiger moved to extend the assessment time period for the Eighth Street North, Second Street North and Third Avenue North improvements (409) from the present five years to seven years. The motion carried, and Hunstiger then moved to approve the rest of the assessment rolls, 407, 408, 409 (including the amended time frame) and 410. The motion was approved.
In a second public hearing the council considered and approved a change in the platting of 10 patio home lots to re-plat them as eight single-family lots in the Villas of Creekside development. With no public input and on the recommendation of Sauk Rapids Community Development Director Todd Schultz, the council approved the re-platting.
In the third public hearing, the council considered the vacation of a portion of Seventh Street South, east of Ninth Avenue South located in the Park Addition. After hearing the concerns of Jim Henry, a property owner adjoining the property, the council approved the vacating of the property.
Under consent agenda items, the council took the following actions:
● Approved a resolution for a joint-powers agreement with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension
● Approved attendance at the 2017 annual Institute for Building Officials
● Approved hiring two new probationary employees for the fire department.
● Approved an amended development agreement and planned-unit development agreement for Creek Side Plat 3
In the regular agenda and with Schultz’s recommendation, the council approved the hiring of Duffy Engineering to evaluate improvements to be made to the Old Municipal Park Building with a cost limitation of $1,400. Council member Steve Heinen suggested perhaps it would be wiser to apply the money to building improvements and dispense with the engineer evaluation. The council approved the improvements in a 4-1 vote with Heinen voting no.
Sauk Rapids City Administrator Ross Olson advised the council of an upcoming vacancy on the council since Hunstiger will assume the position of mayor in January. Olson sought direction as to how the council wanted to fill the position. A special election would cost $5,000 to $6,000, or the council could create a process to fill the position. The council generally consented to fill the position through a process.
Sauk Rapids Police Chief Perry Beise highlighted snowmobile laws and rules for operating a snowmobile in the city of Sauk Rapids. Specifics can be found at the city website under the City Code, Section 6.02.
