03/27/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Councilman Keller questioned the number (500) mentioned in the covering statement. He noted that the information presented at the March 12 meeting covered 700. ! ,Unda Wil t ADC co-ordinator, explained the 700 referred to those invol ved in the scholars hi; training program; the 500 were those who had completed training and had left the welfare rolls. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the statement and proclamation and transmit them to the appropriate Congressional people. Motion carried unanimously. C oinm 3/1ft,i73 Appryove _0 E. Statement, Wounded Knee Incident - Council members were furnished copies of a statement with regard to the Wounded Knee incident. The statement was prepared i at the Council's request ap a result of the Native American presentation at the "'--' March 12 meeting. Councilman Williams suggested deletion of the word "meager" in the next to last paragraph making it read "The fact that the ... efforts up to now do not meet these cri teria ~ . . ." Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the statement, deleting the word "meager," and transmit it to the Oregon Congressional delegation. Motion carried unanimously. , p',.'_ :L~ ConUn 3/14/73 Approve - F~ Sewer Assessment, 11th Addition Edgewood (C.B.16l) (Project 72-22 and 23) - Scheduled for reconsideration by Council at its February 26, 1973 meeting re: Assessment against property owned by Real Estate Development, Inc., represented by Robert W. Hill., attorney. Originally considered by Hearing Panel on January 29, 1973 and dis- cussed by Council on February 14, 1973. Copies of Public Works memo were distributed to Council members with regard to a$sessment policy and background report on this project. Basically the memo suggests consideration for other approaches in the future which wou~d not be available on this particular assessment because determina- tion would have to b,e made prior to proceeding with the project in order to be fair to all those assessed. Alternatives are to proceed with the assessment, withdraw at this time.and collect a connection fee at the time the property is used even though this sewer may never be used by that property, or assess and defer collection until such time as the property can be developed. i ,I . Councilman Murray asked if staff concurs with Mr. Hill's statement that State law specifically prohibits assessment except "when a property benefits. If so, does this property benefit and how. - Manager replied that definition of "benefit" could be I arguedbeca4se of time frame - there may be future benefit because the sewer is there / and can be used, land may benefit from availability of sewers to adjacent properties. The question of benefit to this property is really' a policy decision. Public Works Director said that the property does benefit from the sewer not only from the stand- point of policy set by the City but as a matter of law in decisions on sui ts challenging other assessments based on that policy. He added that this property does not meet cri teria set for defEirment of an assessment, and even though the Council can change I that policy, staff recommends against i t.1ooking to future problems it would incur. Director said that the property in question can be used for many things so it is the degree of use which comes into the discussion. Councilmen Hershner and Wood commented on the unique si tuation and the inconsistency of the Ci ty , s preventing effecti ve development of a property on one hand, and on the other, assessing for facilities to serve that property. ,I Councilmen McDonald, Williams, and Beal favored following the present assessment policy, generally agreeing that the sewer is~of benefit to the Real Estate property ~ - , ~ 'even though it will not be used at this time. Manager noted that limi tation on use of the property is desirable both from the' standpoint of planning and from the owner's desire for the roost effective development. . Councilman Wood thought there should be a policy change-., He said that the assessment would be inequitable if levied as now proposed. Mrs. Beal felt any change would set up di fferent regulations for different si tuations . In answer to Councilwoman Campbell, Attorney Hill said that, when his clients purchased the property plans were that it would. be developed from the north rather than from the south. Public Works Director verified that understanding. I I I . , . J seconded by Mr. Williams to proceed with the assessment as proposed. ;f~---r Councilmen Beal, Williams, McDonald, Mur~ay and Mayor Anderson votin$/\:,-C_I-o~m l Hershner, Campbell, Keller, and Wood vot~ng no. j, 1:4 f3;~ ._"-"- -.-.-__ _. -AP-Pl'ov:e Mrs. Beal moved Motion carried, aye; Councilmen 81 3/27/73 - 7