07/26/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

----- ---~-- Orval Etter, City Attorney's Office, felt that majority vote is best dealt with in Section 19. He raised a question on whether EWEB board members should be treated the same. e Mr. Murray felt consistency was best, and Mr. Keller concurred, suggesting .j it also be referred to EWEB. Assistant Manager referred to redraft of Section 29. "The Mayor shall sign Carom the ordinance officially" has been substituted for "the mayor shall write 7 /14/76 approved on. . .". Regarding the redraft of Section 13, Mayor Anderson questioned File "disabilities" in the proposed sentence reading, "the president of the Council has the legal powers and disabilities incident to the office of Mayor". Mr. Etter said that "disability" is a legal incapacity to do something. At Council's request it was understood City Attorney would consider other language in place of "disabilities". The draft also speaks about the Council President's functioning as Mayor "after the Mayor is absent from the ci ty for 30 days. . .". In answer to a question raised by Mr. Murray, it was understood that staff would redraft language' to provide that the Council President will immediately assume Mayoral duties if it is known in advance that the Mayor will be out of town for 30 days or more. Chapter IX, Public Improvements, was reviewed, including Section 37- Procedures for Public Improvements, Section 38 - Assessments, and a new Section 39, Amendments. Mr. Etter explained that these sections were fashioned after the model charter for Oregon cities which contains provisions to the effect that local- improvement procedures and assessment procedures shall be governed by ~ ordinance, superseding the old tradition that charters spent Pages spelling .- out assessment procedures. Mr. williams raised a question of Council duty in determining the assessment process to avoid arbitrary formulas by which those ,assessments are levied, Assistant City Attorney Stan Long responded that, if a previous policy exists involving a formula, the formula is still valid. However, there must be facts to substantiate whether that formula may be applied to a present instance. In answer to Mr. Williams, Mr. Long clarified there is no obligation to establish that the formula was not arbitrarily derived. Mr. Williams expressed concern. He has seen Council absolutely refuse to justify the grounds on which the assessment charges were made and'is troubled with the thought that the formula is "free rein". Mr. Etter clarified that, if there is no evidence to support an assessment, though ,. the formula may be valid in general it may not hold up in a particular application. Mr. Williams asked if there is any obligation on the part of Council to justify the assessment formula it adopts as to the ratio of assessments. Assistant Manager said staff would try to pull together some parameters based on case histories - but ,that might be impossible. Mayor Anderson noted that t:he work of the assessment policy committee will continue in that regard as well. ... Section 40, Liens (formerly Section 39) was reviewed. Section 41, Freeways, . "~' was reviewed. Assistant Manager explained that, in defining what constitutes a freeway, language has been adopted from ORS. The present charter requires 7/26/76 - 4 3~(P