Full Text
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-17 A RESOLUTION RELATIVE TO THE CREATION OF A PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 132 OF THE CITY OF MOSCOW DEALING WITH PROTESTS AND THEIR DISPOSITION AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. CITY OF MOSCOW LATAH COUNTY, IDAHO LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 132 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Moscow as follows: VlHEREAS, it appears that the Affidavit of Publication of the Notice of Intention, which is on tile in the office of the City Clerk, relative to the creation of proposed Local Improvement District No. 132 has been examined by the Mayor and Council of the City of Moscow for said City of Moscow. WHEREAS, it appears that the City Clerk did mail a copy of the Notice of Resolution of Intention and of Hearing to each owner within the proposed District, and that an Aftidavit of Mailing of Notice to create said Local Improvement District is on file in the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the following protests were filed: NAME OF OBJECTOR PROPERTY DESCRIPTION REASON FOR OBJECTING Clifford L. and Susan M. Vogtrnan 1025 S. Adams Street LID was not initiated by any property owner residing on Veatch Street; objector was not notified that Veatch Street was being included in the Adams Street LID, and for reasons stated in the attached Jetter of objection date-stamped December 2, 2002. WHEREFORE, the following disposition was made of the protest: NAME OF OBJECTOR PROPERTY DESCRIPTION DlSPOSrriON OF PROTEST Clifford L. and Susan M. Vogtrnan 1025 S. Adams Protest is without merit as the property at I 025 S. Adams will benefit from the LID formation ADOPTED BY the Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 2"d day of December, 2002. Resolution Dealing vvith Protests LID 132 ---PAGE BREAK--- DEC- 2 2002 :;rtv MOSCvW CityCurf( Clifford L. and Susan M. Vogtman I 025 S. Adams Street Moscow, Idaho 83843 Protest of the creation of the AdamsN eatch improvement district No. 132 First and foremost, we are protesting the creation of the Adams!V eatch St. LID on the grounds that the Veatch portion of this LID request was not initiated by any property owner residing on Veatch Street. No LID request was ever made for paving Veatch Street. The Veatch portion of this LID is being forced upon those property owners only after a resident from Adams Street, after speaking with City officials, went door to door soliciting signatures from Veatch street businesses. The residence of 1025 Adams was left out of this process and we were not even notified that Veatch street was being suddenly included in this Adams Street LID. To have Adams street residents dictate a very expensive paving project for the residents of Veatch Street is blatantly unfair, and it appears only to be a ploy by the City of Moscow to force this LID onto Veatch street residents. Veatch street, when taken separately does not even have the necessary 65% majority required for an LID in a commercial zone. We do not currently know the legal ramifications of this maneuver. Secondly, in the event that this LID is found to be legally enforceable, we request that our portion of the liability be no greater then one-twelfth (!!12th) of the total LID assessment, or less. (There being twelve participants). If the portion for I 025 S. Adams is to be greater than one-twelfth, we also thereby protest and ask to be removed from all Adams!V eatch LID liability. Our reasoning for not being subjected to additional liability above and beyond any of the other participants is as follows: 1) First, I have been told by my neighbors that dust control, a nice smooth road to exit onto, decreased noise levels, and accompanying increased property values, are the principle reasons for requesting this LID. But, whereas other participants will be able to recoup much of their assessment cost with a compensating increase in property values, our residence at I 025 Adams will only be able to recoup a much smaller portion of increased property value. This is entirely due to the City of Moscow's previous actions which resulted in the adverse placement of JiffY Lube and Super Wash much too close to, and adversely effecting, our property at I 025 Adams. Due to excessive noise levels (blaring stereos, orders being shouted, etc.), as well as other privacy issues, these businesses do not coexist well next to a residential neighborhood. These businesses were established against our vocal protests at a previous counsel meeting, and they should not have been located there. Unfortunately, this has already caused irreparable damage to our property value. The advent of these businesses thereby significantly reduces any propertv value increases that we might otherwise have been able to recoup from these associated street improvements. Also, because of the din coming from the commercial businesses next door, we will not benefit from that noticeable reduction from road noise that our neighbors will enjoy. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2) Additionally, we argue that the make up of the participants in this proposed LID is extremely complex and is intermixing business properties and residential properties. We argue that all of these business concerns, some of which are servicing and washing countless numbers of customers automobiles daily, will be deriving a great deal more value from paved streets than will the residential properties. It should also be noted, and by an extremely large margin, that most of the actual traffic on Veatch and Adams is associated with the businesses on Veatch Street, or is associated with City traffic flows and is not associated with the residential properties. 3) Paving Veatch and Adams is going to greatly increase our traffic flow. Due to the smooth couplet with Hwy 8, this will be particularly problematic with Veatch Street and will therefore most adversely effect the only residence on that block of Veatch. That residence is I 025 Adams. In conclusion, to rule that I 025 South Adams will derive more benefit on the basis that this property has more road frontage, or a larger lot size, is ludicrous due to all of the reasons we have just listed. We feel that if there is any conceivable advantage gained from this paving project attributable to our lot size, or to our street frontage, that it is more than offset by these mitigating circumstances. The only result we can see of having a larger amount of road frontage involved at I 025 Adams is that we are going to be held accountable for the upkeep of nearly 200 feet of sidewalk, and that is no advantage. To require 1025 Adams to contribute more than the other properties involved in this LID would be unwarranted and unjust. Further, if we felt that this LID was an equitable situation for our property, we would not be opposed. ration in this matter, Y'cy Clifford and Susan Vogtrnan