Photo by Jana Peterson

Plenty of Austin residents object to the way the city of Austin does its street assessments.

Tuesday, November 16, 1999

Plenty of Austin residents object to the way the city of Austin does its street assessments.

Robert Vietor thinks the council should change the way it lets out bids; Gordy Harder thinks all assessments should be paid collectively by taxpayers since they all benefit, and Doug Zahradnik just wants his basement back the way it was – dry and uncracked – before 4th Ave. SE was repaired.

Sixty-two of those Austin residents put their objections in writing. Those 62 avoided the assessment hammer at Monday’s Austin City Council meeting, but whether they will continue to avoid payment has yet to be seen. For now, their assessment hearings have been adjourned until an unspecified hearing date in the future. This will be the first time the city has responded to such a large number of petitions. Last year only one person objected and took further legal action.

Not all were hostile to the city or even thought the projects unnecessary – most just didn’t think they should have to pay for their portion (25 percent) of the work. The city pays for the middle 50 percent while abutting property owners pay for 25 percent of costs on either side of the street. Assessments ranged from $21.30 to $30.02 per linear foot for residential properties.

Objections came on four projects: 3rd Ave. SW, 1st Drive NW, 19th St. SW and 4th Ave. SE.

"There are at least eight of us here from the 3rd Ave. project," Harder said. "We have no quarrel with the need, the construction job, the timeliness in spite of the rain, even the sidewalk confusion … We wonder about the actual assessment process. We had a street. We got another street. Where is the increased market value?"

City attorney David Hoversten explained that it was the position of the city that there is a recognizable benefit to properties when a street and or sidewalk is replaced. He went on to say that the Minnesota Supreme Court had also indicated that there was a benefit when a street was replaced – however, that benefit must be quantified.

To that end, each petitioner will have the opportunity to prove his or her property saw no actual increase in value because of the street improvement project and the city will have an equal opportunity to prove the opposite.

"At the hearing, the property owners will have the opportunity to present evidence, witnesses and testimony that the project did not benefit their property," Hoversten said. "Likewise, the city will too. Then it is the decision of the Austin City Council – if the property owner doesn’t like that decision they can appeal it in district court."

There is no date yet for the adjourned hearings. City finance director Tom Dankert speculated that there would have to be several dates set.

"It’s a much more detailed process," Dankert said. "There will have to be appraisals done on each property … The city will have to provide proof for every single parcel individually."

What the city does, each resident will have to do as well, meaning increased legal costs for both sides.

"Street projects have been going on for many years," Council member at-large Dick Chaffee said to the audience in the crowded council chambers. "The benefits to the property owners are pretty evident and the way the projects are assessed is legitimate."