03/13/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Mr. Teague asked if there is any other w..ay of financing and whether the School District's share must be paid this year. Manager said there are two alternatives - relieve the School District of its assessment and spread that cost among all other properties served by the sewer which will require refiguring the entire assessment, or the City could assume the cost for the School Dis- trict's assessment having people throughout the City pay for that portion. He said either method would be a change in' existing policy; that the full amount does not have to be paid this year, that the City can sell bonds to pay for the construction which can be returBed to the City over a ten-year period. If application is made to handle in this manner, the first pay- ment is not due for six months, and the loan does not obligate the District for the full ten- year period since the balance can be paid at any time. He said agencies are notified when possible of planned construction projects, and in this instance School District 52, by letter dated May 27, 1971, advised they would grant a right-of-way for the sewer if the assessment were waived, so it wofuld appear they were aware at that time the project was under discussion. In answer to Mrs. Beal, Public Works Director said the subdivision requiring the sewer was put in by one builder and the sewer was constructed in accordance with the design plan. There was further discussion with regard to standard procedure for assessment for sewer construction. Director in answer to Mr. Hershner ,said there would be no duplication of area assessed' for this sewer and for the sewer on Candlelight Drive. C. C.B.9501 - Withdrawing from Oakway Water District the Smith property north of Bond Lane west of Norkenzie annexed to the City (see action under Ordinances on page 52}. II - Items Considered with One Motion. Previously discussed at committee meetings on March 1 and March 8, 1972. Minutes of those meetings appear below printed in italics. . A. Amend Code Sec. 7.210 re: Segregation of Assessments - In order to segregate prop- erty and sell a portion it is necessary to separate any assessment applying to that portion severed so liens can be cleared. Normally, the lien on the portion severed must be paid in cash to allow the buyer to get a clear title. This pro- cedure is creating some problems for the 10th and Oak Overpark assessment in the resale of land, and the Renewal Agency has asked for an amendment to apply only to the Overpark assessments which will allow the lien to be transferred with the change in title. It is proposed in the adoption of such procedure that the City would review to make sure the value of land is sufficient to cover the liens transferred. There appear to be no problems, and it is understood the change would apply to no other assessments such as for paving, sidewalks, sewers. Manager said it is also suggested that the ordinance provide that the Council may, by resolution, adopt a schedule of fees for processing an assessment segregation. At the present time it is costing about $25.00 for each request which should not 'be at general public expense. (See C.B.9602 on page 52 and Resolution 2023 on page 5 3 .) Corom 3/1/72 Pub Hrng .' , ' B. Amend Code Sec. 4.755 re: Indecent Exposure - The amendment would more clearly define "public place" by adding the words "or in view of a public place" to over- come problems encountered primarily in prosecuting cases in Municipal Court. The present wording could mean that the acts described would only be in violation on publicly-owned property. The change would include private properties open to the publi c or in vi ew df the general publi c. Councilman Williams said he recalled in going through revision of the Code where there was a deliberate oaUssion with regard to a person on private property being viewed by the general public because it was felt a person undressing in his own home should make his own decision whether to pull a shade to prevent being viewed by the public generally. City Attorney explained that the proposed ordinance would still require,a "willful" act. The problem arises in a situation when a person on his own property intentionally and willfully exposes himself to people going by on a sidewalk. Under the present ordinance a person 'in that situation could not be prosecuted. e: Coucilman Williams questioned the line between what a person ,wants to look at and what is illegal for one to look at. He asked why, if it is proper to enact a law making it illegai to commit what may be offensive acts toward some,it is not proper to enact legislation requiring maintenance of property which aUght be offensive to others. City, Attorney said there are some limits on the appearance of property, and that limits on visual pollution are being recognized increasingly. The proposed amendment, he said, is not for the purpose of arguing the desirability of the regulation; it is to make clear whether there is or is not a violation. There are some enforcement problems with the present ordinance, it being essentially the same offense for an act committed in a "public Place" or on private property in view of the public generally. (See C.B.9603 page 52.) Corom 3/1/72 Pub Hrng C. Amend Code Sec. 4.725 re: Disorderly Conduct - City Attorney explained that in addition to more clearly defining the term "public place" the addition of the words "or on preaUses extended to the public for use" in Section 1 Subsection (2) 54 3/13/72