07/24/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

c. Public Retiring Procedure - 'Councilman Mohr reviewed the issue-' of pUbilchearings before'the pouncil as set out in the Public Hearings Subcommittee report of ,July 12, 1974, (members-Mohr ,Hershner ,Bradshaw) . The thrust of the subcommi ttee' s ,', investigation was to avoid the time consuming hearings on matters having no bear- ing on the Council's functions as a legislati ve body. Mr. Mohr stressed the - futility of the Council's hearing appeals from citizens desiring relief from . assessments which are levied as required by ordinance, the Charter, and State law. It is his feeling the Council should hear appeals only on the laws themselves. The present method of hearing appeals is not set by law, rather by practi ce of previous Councils. It was the subcommittee's feeling that appeals to the full Council do not allow for good discussion, a hearing panel of two Council members would provide a better one-to-one rapport. They maintain the City has become too large and its business too complicated to continue with the "town hall" type dis- cussions, thus this initial recommendation to break away from full Council hearing of every individual who appeals his case from adndnistrative or Appeals Boards' decisions. The subcommittee requested Council adoption of its recommendations (see committee minutes July 5, 1972) as a part of the Council's bylaws. Councilman Williams questioned the responsibility of the hearing panel in pre- senting to the full Council issues and recommendations. Mr. Mohr said the hear- ing panel would have to present a structured case without recommendation in those instances when there is disagreement between the two panel members. Assistant Manager said it was the subcommittee's intent that matters before the hearing panel would be presented to the full Council at commi ttee sessions, gi ving an opportunity for the Council to review the issue and decide where it should appear on the Council agenda and whether any Council member desires additional oral testimony at the formal Council session. Mr. Hershner noted that this-procedure also will enable the Council to receive written report on the panel hearing with . the committee agenda, thereby providing time for review before a final decision is made. Mrs. Beal commented on the time element in considering bid awards on improvement ,projects which are presented to the Council for decision. She said the Council does not have the opportunity to review those bids prior to the time they are presented, and said it would seem the suggested hearing procedure will remove that pressure. Mr. Mohr noted that bid openings have not been included in the suggested hearing procedure, only the assessments. There was general discussion on the difference between the two hearings, and an explanation of the procedure followed from the time a petition for an improvement is presented through the assessment for that improvement. It was brought out that the decision by the Council to award a contract for a public improvement is a policy decision, determin- ing whether a project will be authorized. The Council can make no decision on assess- ment. appeals other than to levy the assessment according to law. An assessment may be levied in a different manner; that is, pro rated in a different manner, yet the I entire amount must be levied. Ed Kenyon, Register-Guard, asked why the Council does not drop the assessment ap- peal hearings if nothing can be done about the appeals. Mr. Mohr said that was . suggested in subcommittee, but it was decided too drastic a change in view of ci ti zens ' desires to be heard, hence the hearing panel recommendation. Mrs. Beal suggested a change in the assessment law to more fairly distribute costs of public improvements in those instances where residents owning property along an access road to a l.arge development have to pay for improvement of that road but are 'not benefitted in the same ratio. Or in those instances where single-family' resi- 'dences abut a street or alley improvement on one side, and commercial or high- density development abuts on the other side. She fel t a recommendation in this regard might be the most important function of the subcommittee. I Mr. Hershner noted that the assignment of this subcommittee was to investigate ways of avoiding lengthy hearings before the Council, not to make recommendations on assessment policy. The hearing panel was suggested as a first step on a trial . basis. Manager said the assessment hearings are required by'State law, and in some-Tris-tances they do serve a purpose. There have been errors -'in--cal cuI a tlons n ,-- ,brought out at these hearings. They may eventually have been found in some other " manner, but the hearings do provide an opportunity for things of that nature to be corrected. Councilman Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the Council bylaws be . amended by adding a new section incorporating the subcommittee's recommendations with regard to public hearings. In making the motion Mr. Williams said the overriding concern was to save Council time and this action would be a worthwhile experiment which could readily be re- moved if it is found to be unworkable. a\,\ 7/24/72 - 5