01/07/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

:-certidii ~Ch7:Jrter prov~slons, such .as- That for- nimonst.rance, .-~but--fei t the front--- .:footage basis for assessment was unusual and not necessary in the Charter. She . repeated her concern with the inequity of the present method of alley assessment, I . . saying the subcommittee was asked to make recommendations in that regard. The ,proposal at this time therefore was to remove .the assessment method from the Charter. By so doing future consideration can 'be given to the most equitable . method for calculating assessments. There is no request for change in policy at r this time although there is a proposed schedule, she said, which can be discussed , in public hearing if the amendment is approved by the voters. ~ _'-I"" Councilman Hershner said the subcommittee had proceeded on the assumption that ; method of assessment would better be in ordinance form than a Charter. provision. He hesitated to submit a proposal to the voters without complete Council agreement. He said he had considered the deletion as a housekeeping measure (as it had been referred to) and that he wou.ld not like to go to the voters with the proposal if it was a controversial issue in the Council. Councilman Keller wondered whether 1 Council members would be able to answer voters' questions with regard to the methods' , of assessment to be considered if they are asked .to apprqve that flexibility. : Councilman Williams doubted whether assessing multiple-family properties a larger : portion of alley improvement costs was the proper direction since in his view it fin effect would be assessment because of greater income and subsidization of : lower density kinds of land uses. He thought the assessment deferral program a better way to aid hardship cases. Mrs. Beal took exception to the question of 'subsidization, saying the City is now subsidizing all types of new housing in the installation of any public facility such as sewers, streets, intersections, and the provision of fire and police protection. She argued that single-family prop- erties abutting an alley across from apartments should not be subsidizing. those apartments. . _/-----.~.~-=---~- _____ _..._ ______ ._r _ _" ._.._. _.~ ,.,..j__."-....,,_~ .._~.- ..Councilman Murray had no reservations about taking the proposed amendment to the voters, saying the present method is clearly inequitable and should be changed, although he would prefer unanimous Council action. He saw no intended or accidental secrecy about what could be substituted for the front footage basis of assessment even though the ordinance/under discussion proposing alternate methods had not been distributed. Councilma~ Hershner recalled that when the alley assessment procedure ,was referred to the s6bcommittee there was no controversy - it was a matter only ;of feeling that the/,present method was inequitable. He felt a routine matter was now being turned into an issue. - Mayor Anderson pointed out that the Council should recognize the voters will have ! to be shown actual goals of the city's assessment policy - that of making assess..:...." :ments more equitable in hardship cases - by citing specific cases in past assess~ !.ments. The voters will also have to be informed about the deferral fund set ~p ...' \for hardship cases. Explanation of more facts with regard to the assessment prQ~ : :~gram will have to be brought out, he said, if the measure is to gain voter ,;,apptc>vaL 'Mrs. Beal noted the length of time alley assessment policy had been under ~i~cu~sion ~and the staff's reluctance to make any change in view of workability of the #f~sent !method. She stressed the fact that the proposed amendment would not make any change in any assessment policy at this time. Mayor Anderson made it clear that he was ;speaking neither in opposition nor in favor of the proposal, that he was only point- .ing out that he thought the Council would be faced with a situation similar to the :election on Council compensation when a. specific proposal and sufficient information ,were not presented to the voters. lCouncilman Murray felt it unfortuante that the proposal was discussed as a hardship !relieving measure. He saw it as a much broader issue, principally one of fairness fin applying costs for alley improvements in relation to use, not in relation to income of the property owner. f. . - I.Councilman Keller wondered if there would be I.to Council members. Mayor Anderson answered ,input at the formal Council meeting. ..-~' , & Vote was taken on the T[1otion to adopt the proposed resolution.- _Motion carried, Councilmen Beal, Hershner, Campbell, Murray, and Wood voting aye; Councilmen Williams and Keller voting no. ~ --=-_.. ._~_'>-__ ~. _ ........_._~:-~_:.~_ ~= --=--~__L-:-_~ __ _______ . I'Distribution, South Hills 'Study:" Copies of prelim1.nary'-report- on -lhfi South HiDs G. study were d' t .b t d t ' :, _ ~s r~ u e 0 Counc~l members. Councilwoman Campbell, dhairman of the ;Jo~n~ Parks Co~~ttee, ask~d the Council for adoption of a resolution (copies Iprev~ously furn~shed Counc~l members) which would extend th l' 't t.'.... d 1 , t' , . e ~m~ a ~On on eve op- .men ~n the S~uth H~lls area to April 1, 1974 to allow ti~e for -public hearings ~n the study. ,J~m Sa~l, study co-ordinator, outlined contents of the preliminary re-' : port and .sa~d heanngs. are scheduled before the Joint ~!lrks Corr.r.ni ttc:~ .iJ~d Planning. ~ _ { any change in the resolution distributed/ that that would be determined by public I i /1 ,/'/ .'~ ~ 1/7/74 - 8 J