Laserfiche WebLink
<br />increased cost of $5.00 per acre on each of the eligible units for the <br />rail signal light crossing. Mayor Madsen declared the public hearing Open <br />and asked any individuals present who had' comments ,to address the Council <br />at this time. Mr. ,Cliff Lundberg addressed the City Council and indicated . <br /> <br />~~~ ~~;i;~.:-:t:~e ~:l t~at.::~=.i~b~~S::.~c~:~;t~t~ ... .... <br /> <br />Council should consider,reserving a certain amount' of. the cost of the' pro- <br />jectfor future assessments to additional property which may eventua1~ <br />utilize the rail crossing. Mr. Lundberg also asked why therewa$ a dif;" <br />ference in the assessment being shown at this meeting from that contained <br />in the City Clerk's office prior to the meeting. The City Administrator <br />indicated that the assessment roll as presented at this meeting was cOrrected <br />to accurate~ reflect the City Council policy of not assessing farm land <br />for the improvements in question and that farm land had" inadvertently been <br />included in the assessment roll contained in the Clerk's office Prior to the <br />hearing. Ms. Roberta Beauchane addressed the City Council a,.p.d indicated <br />that since a blacktopped road would eventually link the two county roads <br />in the vicinity, being County Road 32 and County Road 35, and since more <br />people in the area would then benefit from the crossing, then those indi...; <br />viduals should also be assessed for a portion of the cost of the rail crossing. <br />Councilman otto indicated that the primary benefit of the crossing is" to <br />the individuals in the area and, as such, they should be required to pay <br />for the crossing and not the rest of the City. Mr. otto indicated that <br />all other individuals in the City had to pay for streets and this subdi- <br />vision should be no exception. Mr. Charles Christian addressed the Council <br />and indicated he is in the process of platting a 40 acre parcel north of <br />the Peterson Addition known as Davis Woods and that the proposed assess- <br />ments may make the development of this parcel too expensive to be economical. <br />Mr. Robert Fritz addressed the City Council and asked why- his property was <br />incl~ded in the area proposed to be assessed inasmuch as he felt he had no . <br />benefit from the rail crOSSing for which he is, propoSed to be assessed.' .. <br />Mayor Madsen indicated that Mr. Fritz's property had been included in the <br />area to be assessed because eventually traffic from any use estahlished,on <br />the. property will be funneled through the rail crossing and, as such, the <br />parcel will benefit. The City Administrator indicated that Mr. Fritz's <br />parcel was also not in agricultural use and, as such, is not excluded as were <br />other surrounding agricUltural properties. Mr. Wally Ohland addressed the <br />City Council and indicated that he is opposed to the assessments .that he <br />feele,he does not benefit from the improvements in.the,area'andhefeels <br />that, in fact, he is penalized by having to drive further and maintain a . <br />greater length of driveway than he currently now does. The City Administrator <br />:indicated, to Mr. OhlaI)d, thlil.t the City would consider maintaining the con- <br />necting roadway between Ogden Street' and' Mr. Ohland' s driveway;. it i Mr. . Ohland <br />wished to pursue the matter. The Administrator indicated further' that' Mr. <br />Ohland benefits from the assessment in that the crossing provides ..legal <br />access to his property which otherwise would' be denied when' the Endsting <br />private rail crossing was closed by the Burlington Northern Railroad. Mr. <br />Gregg Pederson indicated that the Burlington Northern Railroad does have <br />the right to close the existing private crossing and will do so if the pro- <br />ject is not authorized. Councilman otto indicated that it is not too . late <br />to cancel the City's contract with the railroad for the constrUction of the <br />crossing and that unle$5 the residents decide now that they want the. crossing <br />that it will be cancelled and the matter closed. The City Administrator <br />also indicated to those present that the rail crossing serves two other pur- <br />poses for the Peterson Addition residents and others benefiting. The crossing <br />provides a safer means of traversing the railroad tracks as mucha.1S drop arms .'. <br />and signal lights will be installed and, additionally, the rail crossing will' <br />eventually provide for two means of access to the benefiting area if and <br />