02/14/1972 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

on the basis that it is extending and perpetuating a special service district in an area which should logically be annexed to the City at some future time. Staff proposes a contract between the Ci ty and property owners whereby Ci ty would provide fire pro- .tection at a specified charge and the owners would cons8t to annexation to the City at '" .;:t1~~ti~.e as it becomes appropriate, and then the annexation would proceed only at city.'s' choice because of possible desire to delay until improvements are in and on the tax rolls. . ...........:-,~,7:~' Manager said this type of contract is also a policy matter and asked the Council's approval of the staff's IDsition in proposing contracts for future 'annexation as outlined, or making any changes deemed necessary, or the Council may wish to consider each such annexation request of this nature. He said this particular case has another area of conflict if annexed to the City in that the kinds of identification signs de- sired by Kendall Ford and other agencies do not conform with the City's Sign Code; this has been referred to the Planning Commission for consideration. Other than that issue, be ~~~d property owners would not resist entering into a contract~ outlined. Manager said staff has Deen handling similar annexation proposals as they arise, but since there are some policy qllestions involved Council may want discussion at some future commdttee meeting. ' Council expressed aeS.J.rb ~.;, hear more about such contracts, at the same time approv- ing staff's position of not providing piecemeal services. Manager further said in the instance of properties in the Valle!} River vic.i.D.ity that the sewe,r; situation is not clear; there is limited capacity, and that problem would have to be resolved with the property owners at time of annexation. Mr. Williams asked if the problem with regard to the Sign Code requirements could be met with amendment to the Code. Manager said district boundaries could be amended if that would then satisfy what they feel their needs are under the new boundaries; if nut satisfactory to them, then it would require consideration of whether restrictions in whatever district they were in were too seve~'e. There is also the question of whether amendment would be desirable. The Planning Commission may want to give some directi on. It was understood the item would be brought bac:k for future discussion. . Comm 2/9/72 File In answer to question from Mrs. Campbell. Manager said rather than the Kendall Ford property's being added to the Willakenzie Fire District) since it is an area to1hich wi~.:'.. :nn<1uire f'J.lJ. City services and since the City provides fire protection to the Willakenzie District, it appears to be more appropriate if the City would enter into a contract with those property owners pro- viding that when their properties become contiguous to the City they would consent to annexa- tion. The contract would provide fire service and, if appropriate, sewers when and if they can be provided at the property owners' expense. This recommendation was made at the staff level to the Boundary Commission and brought to the Council since it seems to be a policy matter. II. ~1f3.flre9ati.on of Assessment, south side of Jeppesen Acres Road between Gilham and Providence - Richard G. Jones, 2270 Jeppeson Acres Road, requested segregation of $292.48 of sewer assessment, leaving a balance of $476.44, to enable partition of 60 feet frontage at this location. It was understood the reql.U:1At would be placed on the consent agenda for the February 14, 1972 Council meeting. Comm 2/9/72 File i . r I I I , ! Manager told Council members the applicant had withdrawn the application for segregation. Mr. Mohr IOOved seconded by Mrs. Beal that Ite1l6 A through II - except Item S upon which separate action was taken - be approved, affirmed, and filed' as noted. Rollcall vote. A1J,. councilmen present voting aye, IOOtion carried. i I I i i i .. I I I I I ! J4 2/~'+/72 - 12