09/25/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mrs. Beal wondered whether needs of the Center could be indicated and then a priority on funds worked out 'later. Mayor Anderson suggested adoption of the statement submitted, with the idea of developing a percentage figure, either a ceiling or fixed aIrrJunt, after experience wi th operation of the Center.. . Councilman Mohr favored setting a maximum percentage' to avoid competi tion for funds between the Auditorium and others, giving the Allocation comrrdtteea c1ear.way of knowing how much to apportion for other purposes. . ~- -" Mrs. Campbell wondered where funds' would be available if vote on' the' bond issue is favorable and the Association is ready to start hiring a staff; Manager noted the una110cated balance of about $144,000 in the room tax fund which would probably be available. He reviewed the amounts which have been allocated to the Association. He suggested that if a fixed percentage is decided' upon, it should perhaps be de- fined as "minimum" rather than "maximum" so that the Association would be assured of no, less than a certain amount of the tax receipts. Mr. Hershner asked whether existing una110cated funds would be'inc1uded if the language of'the proposed statement is adopted, i.e., would the Council be pledg- ing the $144,000 ba1ance'in the funds. Manager said Cbuncil would' have that choice. Mr. ,Williams was concerned with guaranteeing the Association 50% bf the tax fund I with the 'possibility at some ;future time of the City's finding itself in position of not having revenues for the general operating fuild and having to cut out parks and recreation facilities to meet debt retirement on the Center. There was fur:'" ther discussion with regard to establishing a minimum figure, whether that should . apply to unal10cated funds or to receipts, where responsibility for operation of the Center lies, and 'pri vi1ege of future Cbunci1s to. change a policy statement. Comm 9/13/72 Mr. Bradshaw moved seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the statement as submi tted. Approve Moti'on carried, Mrs. Campbell voting no. I I B. De-Annexation, Hawkins Heights Area - Tying run on second again and Planning Com- mission August 1, 1972 recommended de-annexation of an area located along Hawkins and it ,came in four to four Lane from Hawkins Heights Boulevard south approximately 3,750 feet. ' The Boundary commission added . the area to an annexation request by Breeden Bros., and the agencies involved failed to give the usual mail notice of '\ public hearing to the residents of the area. In making the de-annexation recom- mendation the Planni.ng Comrrdssion indicates that it does not necess,i;u;i1y feel the area should be de-annexed; rather that the residents are entitled to a hear~ ing, and the only procedural way of doing so is to 'recommend de-annexation to the Boundary comrrdssion. A recent informal poll indicates owners of 52"d% oppose de-annexation, 17.88% 'favor. de-annexation, and there was 'no opinion-'from 30.02%. Councilman Williams questioned the percentages of the poll as they relate to the area, asking the number of people favoring or opposing the proposal. Tabulation of a poll, copies of whi ch were distributed to Counci 1 members, indi cated fi ve . resident owners opposed de-annexation, seven were in favor, and' three' did not re""- spond. Mr. Mohr said .on that basis an election in"favor of de-aim ex at ion would pass. Councilman Williams commented that consideration should also be given to the position of non-resident owners of property in the area. Mrs. Beal said she feels information on which to base a decision should include whether it will cost the :Ci ty' s taxpayers more for servi ces to an area than the area .will bring in increased valuation. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the matter be transmitted to the Boundary commission with the recommendation that the area in question be de-annexed. Considerable discussion fol10w~d still four to four going into the ninth with re- gard to recommendation for de-annexation. Diane Nechak, Boundary comrrdssion staff, explained that if the Council initiates withdrawal of the area, public hearing will be scheduled before the Boundary comrrdssion, giving people in the area an opportunity to be heard. She said a vote in the area is unlikely. Councilman Hershner inquired about the Planning Comrrdssion' position. Manager said initially the Commission, and the Council also, took the position that the property should be annexed. Councilman Bradshaw said it should be the choice of the people in the area whether they are a part of the City, and that right was not afforded them. vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, Councilmen Mohr; Bea1, . Campbell, and Bradshaw voting aye; Councilmen Williams and Hershner voting no. Further discussion with regard to Council recommendation took place 'and further clarification of procedure in taking the matter to the Boundary Commission by Ms. Nechak. Mayor Anderson commented that the Council will now have the oppor- tunity to make any recommendation at the time of hearing before the Boundary Com- 2 8 Lf 9/25/72 - 6