01/10/1955 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,e --, ~-,~ "-~ / {;~i U""";I'tJ 1 8 e I e. I' e / ... wi' I " e _.~-------- ------- - ... 0_. ... '_CJ " THIS WAS DISCUSSED BY THE COMMITTEE AND IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF, THE COMMITTEE THAT 'THE' REQUEST BE APPROVED SUBJECT, TO THE APPROVAL AS TO FORM BY THE C I T,Y ATTORNEY." I T 'WAS MOVED BY MR. WATSON, SECONDED BY 'MR. KOPPE THAT THE REPORT OF TH~ AIRPORT COMMITTEE BE ADOPTED. MOTION CARRIED. 'A REPORT RE: PEn TI ON SUBMITTED AND . OF THE FIN~NCE AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE,MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 29, 1954 _ OF PROPERTY OWNERS PROTESTING COUNCIL POLICY; AND BUS COMPAN~ FRANCHISE WAS READ AS FOLLOWS: "PRESENT: MAYOR JOHNSON;" COUNCILMEN BOOTH, GODLOVE, KOPPE, SIEGE~THALER, WATSON AND SHEARER; COUNCILMAN-ELECT HARTMAN; CITY MANAGER; CITY ATTORNEY; CITY ENGINEER AND CITY RECORDER. MRS. H. STRONG AND MRS. W. A. CRAFT, RESIDENTS ON WEST 18TH AVENUE NEAR ,CHARNELTON STREET ALSO ATTENDED THE MEETING. THERE WERE TWO ITEMS OF BUSINESS REf~RRED TO THE FINANCE AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEES FOR CONSIDERATION:- I. PETITION OF P~OPE~TYOWNERS PROTESTING COUNCIL POLICY INVOLVING PRINCIPLE OF ASSESS- MENT FOR ARTERI AL STREETS ,I N RESI,DENTI AL AREAS. THE PETITION OF PROPERTY OWNERS AND ALONG WEST 18TH AVENUE AND OTHERS REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE PRINCIPLE OF ASSESSING FOR ARTERIAL STREETS IN RESIDENTI~L AREAS WAS DIS- CUSSED. II II I IN THE DISCUSSION, TWO MEMBERS Of THE COMMIT1EE SUPPORTED THE PETITIONERS BY CON- TENDING THAT THE PRESENT POLICY Of THE COUNCIL IS UNFAIR TO THE OWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ABUTTING SUCH ARTERIAL STREETS. I~ WAS ARGUED THAT THE CO~STRUCTION Of ARTER- IALS THROUGH RESIDENTIAL AREAS IS FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CITY AND TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ABUTTING SUCH STREET AND THAT OWNERS OF SUCH PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY MORE THAN THE COST Of A NORMAL RESIDENTIAL STREET. ANOTHER POINT BROUGHT OUT BY PROPONENTS WAS THAT THE SAME PRINCIPLE SHOULD APPLY TO THE COST Of HEAVIER CONSTRUCTION AS APPLIED TO THE COST Of THE EXTRA WIDTH. IF THE CITY IS TO PAY THE COST Of THE EXTRA WIDTH THEN WHY NOT ALSO THE COST Of THE EXTRA THICKNESS. COMMI TTEE MEMBERS OPPOSI NG THE CHANGE I N THE POll CY POI NTED OUT .THAT IF THI S CHANGE WAS ADOPTED THAT IT WOULD AMOUNT TO A COMPLETE DEPARTURE FROM THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF ASSESSI ~G PROPERTY ,FOR THE C,OST OF LOCAL ,I MPROVEMENTS. THE PR I NC I PLE IS THAT PROPERTY SHOULD BEAR THE COST IN PROPORTION TO THE BENEfiTS. THE THEQRY IS THAT'THE .PROPERTY WILL B~NEfIT IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER NOW OR IN THE fUTURE IN PROPORTION.TO THE QUALITY AND COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT. IT WAS POINTED OUT ALSO THAT IN ITS PRESENT POLICY WHERE- I.N THE; CI TY PAY.S FOR THE COST OF EXTRA .WI DT~ IN RESI DENTI AL AREAS ,THAT .THE COUNCI L HAS MADE A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE AS AN OFfSET TO THE ~OST OF GREATER WIDTH. . IN ANSWER TO A QUESTION AS TO WHAT EfFECT SUCH A CHANGE WOULD HAVE ON PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS IT WAS THE COMMENT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT SOME ARTERIAL STREETS HAVE BEEN BUILT, ASSESSED AND P~ID FOR UNDER THE ESTABL.ISHED POLICY AND THAT THE CITY MIGHT BECOME THE PRINCIPAL PARTY IN LEGAL ACTION TO RECOVER A PORTION OF AMOUNTS ASSESSED. I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I i I \ I IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SIEGENTH~LER, SECONDED BY MR. SHEARER THAT THE COUNCIL POLICY ON ASSESSING fOR THE COST OF ARTERIAL STREETS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS BE CHANGED SO THAT OWNERS OF SUCH PR9PERTY WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM ASSESSMENT FOR THE COST OF EXTRA WIDTH AND EXTRA THI CKNESS EXCLUDI NG THE STREET SUBGRADE AND FOR THE PURP,OSE OF 01 FfERENTI ATI NG BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL THAT R-3 AND R-4 ZONES BE CONSIDERED COMMERCIAL. , THE VOTE ON THE MOTION RESULTED IN A TIE, TWO FOR AND TWO AGAINST. THE COMMITTEE ,THEREFORE REFERS THE MATTER BACK TO THE COUNCIL WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION. 2. COUNCIL B"ILL No. 18(9 - AMENDING BUS FRANCHISE - THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW fARE I~CREASES IN T~E BUS FARES DUR1NG EVENING HOURS AND ON SUNDAYS fOR AN EXPERIMENTAL PERIOD OF 120 DAYS. 'IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE AND GIVE PASSAGE TO THIS BILL ~NJANUARY 10, 1955." IT WAS MOVED BY MR. BOOTH, SECONDED BY MR. GODLOVE THAT ITEM #2 OF THE REPORT BE SEGREGATED AND THAT THE RECOMMENDATION THEREIN BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. SINC~ ITEMS NUMBERS I AND 4 OF THE PUB~IC WORKS MEETING OF JANUARY 5TH ALSO REGATED TO THE QUESTION OF THE ASSESSMENT POLICY ON ARTERIAL STREETS (ITEM #1 FINANCE & PUBLIC SAFETY MEETING 12/29)'THEY WERE ALSO READ PRIOR TO FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT., 7 MR. ~IEGENTHALER, AN EX-COUNCILMAN, WAS RECOGNIZED, AND SPOKE AT LENGTH ON BEHALf OF THE PETITIONERS. MR. SIEGENTHALER ALSO READ LETTERS FROM MRS. WALLACE BALDINGER, MR. C. L. KELLY, MR. Roy M. MORSE, MEMBERS OF THE FORMER CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON CRoss-TOWN STREETS, RECALLING THAT IT WAS THEIR IMPRESSION THAT THE CITY WAS TO BEAR THE COSTS OF ARTERIALS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WHICH WERE OVER AND ABOVE THE COST OF A RESIDENTIAL STREETS. MESSRS. MCGINTY, BUFORD AND SCHNEIDER ALSO SPOKE IN BEHALF OF A POLICY IN WHICH THE CITY WOULD BEAR THE COST OF THE EXTRA THICKNESS OF ARTERIAL STREETS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. MESSRS. MCGINTY AND BUFORD, WHO WERE CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH THE 2-1/2 MILL CROSS-TOWN STREET PROGRAM CONTENDED THAT THIS WAS THE INTENT AT THE TIME THE PROGRAM WAS SOLD TO THE PUBLIC. MRS. STRONG, MRS. CRAfT AND OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS 'ON WEST-18TH AVENUE ALSO SPOKE ON THE SUBJECT. ~