|
<br />,.....
<br />
<br />539
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />3/22/71
<br />
<br />1
<br />I
<br />Ii
<br />
<br />'.
<br />I,
<br />I,
<br />ii
<br />"
<br />,I
<br />I
<br />!i
<br />I;
<br />
<br />r
<br />.1
<br />II
<br />II
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />* CB 8946 - Ordinance #16189
<br />
<br />ORDINANCES
<br />
<br />No Councilman requesting that it be read in full, the following council bill was read the first time
<br />by council bill number only:
<br />
<br />C.B. 9377 - Prohibiting certain referral selling, and providing penalties, was submitted,
<br />and since it was short, was read in full. (See page 2 for Council discussion on this
<br />ordinance)
<br />
<br />Ii
<br />i:
<br />I'
<br />"
<br />:1
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the bill be read the second time by council bill number
<br />only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion
<br />carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous
<br />consent of the Council.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr.~M~Donald that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall
<br />vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16174.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />COUNCIL BILL NO. 9340 - Relating to Trespassing, establishing penalties, was submitted the first
<br />time on January 25, 1971 and failing to receive unanimous consent for second reading, was held over,
<br />and is brought back for consideration at this time. For council action on this bill, see Page 1 of
<br />these minutes.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the bill be read the second time by council bill number
<br />only. ,),!,?:t~::m~-carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only.
<br />
<br />'I
<br />I,
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall
<br />vote. Messrs. McDonald, Gribskov and Hershner voted aye. Mrs. Beal, Mr. Mohr and Mrs. Campbell
<br />voted no. The chair ruled that the vote was a tie and that themotion had failed. The bill did not
<br />pass.
<br />
<br />.:
<br />1;
<br />,
<br />"
<br />I
<br />Ii
<br />il
<br />Ii
<br />I:
<br />I'
<br />,I
<br />!I
<br />
<br />"
<br />:1
<br />COUNCIL BILL No. 93'G8 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer - Sweetland Park Trunk Sewer II
<br />within area bounded-bY;"We'st_llth Avenue on south, Terry Street on West, Southern Pacific Railroad I
<br />tracks on north and Danebo Avenue on east was submitted and read in full the first time on February!:
<br />22, 1971, held over to this meeting to allow proper notice of assessment to be given owners of affected::
<br />properties, and is brought back for consideration with no written protests on file. I:
<br />
<br />"
<br />il
<br />il
<br />I ~
<br />!i
<br />I:
<br />ii
<br />"
<br />"
<br />!I
<br />:1
<br />,I
<br />,I
<br />:I
<br />,
<br />"
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the bill be read the second time by council bill number
<br />only, with unanmmous consent of the Council, and that enactment be oonsidered at this time.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall
<br />vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16175.
<br />
<br />I'
<br />I ~
<br />Ii
<br />Ii
<br />!:
<br />
<br />. . ,_ ...90UNCIL BILL NO. 9369 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within
<br />Foothill){e.I?:L ~rd .,idd. was submitted and read in full the first time on February 22, 1971, held over
<br />to this meeting to allow proper notice of assessment to Be given owners of affected properties, and
<br />is brought back for consideration with no written protests on file.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the bill be read the second time by council bill number
<br />only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time.
<br />
<br />1-
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall
<br />vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16176.
<br />
<br />,
<br />:I
<br />"
<br />Ii
<br />"
<br />;i
<br />II
<br />Ii
<br />i:
<br />i:
<br />,I
<br />"
<br />II
<br />I!
<br />II
<br />II
<br />I'
<br />ii
<br />II
<br />I.
<br />il
<br />II
<br />I.
<br />11
<br />I'
<br />Ii
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />_,.._~....:o,.-_-_ " ::._:_.~ .. .... _=c_-,___._.~~. ._;'_c,..~~.:"-__- ",,-oe'-'= " '''"''' ._ c;.;_ ,,--- . " ~'.-"-.~' -""'::. --'-
<br />COUNCIL .BI:q.J ,!J9.._,9.9.70" - Le:vyingasse's"sme_rrts 'fs:>r'~P?ving': s.a.n'H:ary.:- .~ewer'ahd storm sewer ihTabpr
<br />Park Subdi viSio~- was submitted and-];';r~d'-4n"fuil :'thEi ;'f'i'rst:~dme February '22,-1971~' a:i1d-neTd ove'r to
<br />this meeting to allow proper notice of assessment to be given owners of affected properties, and is
<br />brought back for consideration with" 0de~~Fit"-ti:m'~otesj;-~Q.h' frle.
<br />--..-....---,.,,:..--. .-
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I,
<br />"
<br />Mr. Kenneth Morrow, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. George Lindly, spoke in opposition to the I
<br />proposed assessment of property located at the corner of Norkenzie Road and Amberland Avenue. He Ii
<br />said the original owner had sold a portion of the parcel, which left the lot with Mr. and Mrs. Lindly' si'
<br />house with only 56 fee frontsge. Location of the street will place the house 14 feet from the curb. ':
<br />Under the proposed plans, the edge of the sidewalk would be five feet from the side of their home.
<br />This is not good planning and will decrease the value of the property over a period of time. The
<br />proposed assessment is in the sum 'of $3,468.35, which is based upon a value of $9.55 front foot for
<br />the Lindly property. Mr. Morrow said it was unfair to assess the Lindly's on this basis, when the
<br />construction of the street actually represented a depression in value of the property, which is just
<br />56 feet wide. He felt it would be more equitable to assess for the portion which would appreciate
<br />in value. He could see no way the strip &f land could appreciate from extension of the road. Mr.
<br />Morrow said Mr. Lindly had opposed the street at all times in its present location, but to no avail.
<br />He is willing to pay what he feels is his fair share of the portion which will benefit from the
<br />improvement.
<br />
<br />"
<br />ii
<br />il
<br />
<br />In answer to Mr. Mohr, Mr. Morrow said Mr. Lindly has voiced his objection from the time he received
<br />his first notice. As early as last spring Mr. Morrow lodged a protest in his behalf, but was informed'
<br />there could be no formal protest until the monetary assessment.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />City Manager said the first record the City has of Mr. Lindly'sdissatisfaction is a letter from
<br />Mr. Morrow dated September 17, 1970. Mr. Morrow said Mr. Lindly had spoken to the City Engineer
<br />previously and had attempted to see the rrty Attorney. He was then told he could not pose a formal
<br />
<br />objection until the final assessment had been made.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />~'
<br />
<br />3/22/71 - 19
<br />
|