|
<br />,...-
<br />
<br />c512
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />3/22/71
<br />
<br />:1
<br />
<br />11
<br />II City Manager agreed that the ordinance could be changed, but it was his opinion it could not legally
<br />,I be adopted and the bonds sold this !?pring, because proper notice of the new assessment would have to
<br />,I be given. He pointed out to the Council that they should consider the property as vacant land.
<br />That the potential is there, regardless of the fact that there is a house on it. The justification
<br />for the assessment is present.
<br />
<br />Ii
<br />1\
<br />
<br />1-
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal did not agree. She felt Mr. Lindly's home was already on this lot, and he had no desire
<br />to build a duplex on it.
<br />
<br />Mr. Gribskov noted that, without this street, the back portion of the property could not be utilized,
<br />and that, with subdivision, the lots would certainly be worth the assessment. Unfortunately, the
<br />lot is now subdivided, so they are discussing only one piece of property. However, this street does
<br />open it up for subdivision.
<br />
<br />In answer to Mr. McDonald, the Manager pointed out ' standard procedure of notifying owners of
<br />proppective assessment and that notice had been given prior to opening of bids.
<br />
<br />Mr. Movrow said that even it Mr. Lindly had wanted the street, he would have depended on the Council
<br />to determine the benefit and just and legal apportionment of the cost of the street.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />City Manager explained that the notice of hearing at the time bids are awarded includes an estimate
<br />of cost for each lot, and that the notice spells this out in front foot asses@ment to each property
<br />owner. He is invited at that time to be heard. That is the time the Council wwould discuss
<br />whether costs are exhorbitant or if it is acceptable. The Council has the right at that time to
<br />deny award of bids o~ to readvertise. Onee they have awarded bids, they are committed to the
<br />contractor to pay him ,t~t amount for his work. The purpose of the assessment hearing is to deter-
<br />mine whether there are errors in the manner of assessment or whether other errors such as wrong
<br />property measurements or ownership information has been used.
<br />
<br />I.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal agreed it was not the business of the Council to fix assessment values or interfere with
<br />the ordinary conduct of this kind of project, but she felt it was the business of the Council to
<br />listen to someone who had a just co~plaint. She felt he should be given a chance to talk it over;
<br />with staff and try to reach a fair solution.
<br />
<br />I,
<br />~ l
<br />
<br />Mr. Hershner supported Mrs. Beal's statement. He did not feel the Council should proceed in a
<br />hurry if there were serious questions. He also agreed with Mr. Gribskov, but still felt this was a
<br />high assessment for three lots. '
<br />
<br />"
<br />i'
<br />,I
<br />Ii
<br />11
<br />'I
<br />II
<br />II
<br />:i
<br />:,
<br />I
<br />Ii
<br />ii
<br />I;
<br />Ii
<br />Ii
<br />. II
<br />"
<br />'\
<br />
<br />Mr. McDonald was concerned that the Council would be setting up a new policy of reassessment. A
<br />public hearing had been held giving approximate costs of assessment against property, and property
<br />owners were notified. The paving was already completed, and this was not the time to discuss
<br />propriety of assessments. '
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal agreed with ,Mr. McDonald that the Council should not try to make an adjustment.
<br />
<br />Mr. McDonald pointed out that failure to assess this property would mean a delay of one full year,
<br />and the City would have to bear the interest costs.
<br />
<br />Ii:
<br />Ii
<br />"
<br />ii
<br />':
<br />:1
<br />
<br />City Manager did not feel the matter should be run through simply because of a time schedule. If
<br />the Council felt the improvement was not of benefit, it should not be acted upon at this time. The
<br />ii Manager, however, did not feel this situation was any different than hundreds of others faced
<br />Ii annually. If the Council attempts to analyze assessed benefit, it may find itself in a position
<br />ii where it has to make assessments on projects prior to construction so that it is known whether or
<br />I' not the money invested by the City can be collected.
<br />11
<br />11
<br />"
<br />I'
<br />I:
<br />i.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />Mrs. Campbell stated it was unusual that the Council gave so much time to this complaint. She felt
<br />a similar complaint had been made at the;previous committee meeting, and the Council had spent much
<br />less time in discussion. She felt this was inconsistent. For that reason, she would abstain from
<br />voting.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />City Attorney pointed out that the only condition under which councilmen could abstain from voting
<br />was a conflict of interest.
<br />
<br />I! _~ ,,"'- __v:
<br />:; "Mr. -McIlona'lir~oved seconded by Mr. Gribskov that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall
<br />i: vote. Messrs. McDonald, Gribskov, Campbell and Hershner voted yes. Mrs. Beal and Mr. Mohr voted
<br />!i no. Chair ruled that the motion carried. The 'bill was numbered 16177.
<br />
<br />"
<br />ii
<br />I, COUNCIL BILL NO. 9371 - Lewying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer in 3rd
<br />Ii' Addition to Paradise Park was submitted and read in full the first time on February 22, 1971 and
<br />I held over to this meeting to allow proper notice of assessment to be given owners of affected
<br />"
<br />;i properties and brought back for consideration with no written protests on file.
<br />L
<br />I,
<br />Ii
<br />"
<br />il
<br />Ii
<br />:1
<br />II
<br />II
<br />Ii
<br />"
<br />I;
<br />"
<br />I,
<br />\1
<br />I'
<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 unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Mbmion
<br />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.
<br />vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16188.
<br />
<br />R:ollcall
<br />
<br />from
<br />held
<br />
<br />COUNCIL BILL NO. 9372 - Levying assessments for paving alley between 1st Avenue and Cihark Avenue I
<br />Jefferson Street to west 200' was submitted and read in full the first time on February 22, 1971 :
<br />over to this meeting to allow proper notice of as~essment to be given owners of affected
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />3/22/71 - 21
<br />
|