|
<br />~~~n~~~~i~u~~:~t~:~~yt~~~S~V~~~~:~:~:~~~:t~::i~h~e:S~=~~::tw=~:~:;=i;
<br />
<br />,The Charter requ~res assessment to abutting properties, he,~aid, and that cannot;
<br />be changed wi thouta vote' of the people.
<br />
<br />In response to Councilwoman Campbell's inquiry as to whether the objectors felt
<br />:the.paving added value to their properties, Mr. Newman replied that he didn't
<br />ithink it would, especially if the subdivision was for apartments which would in-
<br />
<br />:~~;~.2:~ ~~~~-f;t~., st~~~t?;N};~taq ta~~~~~e~helorh1~en%e~~1:{~e 05Ft~~a~~1ii9Jf1s~~~enue
<br />
<br />without owners of the abutting properties knowing it was'to take place. For
<br />that reason she felt the subdivision should bear the cost. Mr. Teitzel' explained
<br />that the Charter requirement was baseq on the premise that every property owner
<br />in the city would pay a fair share of street paving in the city. He repeated
<br />that under the Charter the city could not legally assess the subdivision for
<br />more than its frontage.
<br />
<br />Further discussion centered on notification process, and reliance on County
<br />r~cords to determine owners of the properties. Mr. Teitzel said tax records
<br />could not be used - when Mr. Newman remarked the County records were accurate
<br />so far as sending out tax notices - because of the number of land transactions
<br />under sales contracts which would result in sending notice of improvement;
<br />projects to loan companies.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />'Further discussion touched on interest charges, possibility of Bancrofting for
<br />assessments, number of owners who did not receive notice that the improvement
<br />was proposed, percentage petitioning the project, cost per front foot, etc.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Council members concluded there was enough procedural confusion to warrant going
<br />through the notification process again, even though the end result; would be to
<br />levy the assessments as legally required, and recognizing that legal procedure
<br />was followed in notifying the property owners. Mr. ,Teitzel noted that tbe city
<br />owns one lot abutting Cody Avenue so that the petition on the project probably
<br />was signed by owners of more than half the property to be assessed. He also
<br />,noted resubmission of petition to correct possible deficiency' in notice to prop-
<br />erty owners would not result in another public hearing on award on contract; since
<br />:the project was completed.
<br />
<br />Recommendation~ Postpone assessment and request that petition for the
<br />project be. resubmitted to permit notificatlon to prop~rty
<br />owners.
<br />
<br />~anager said that if there was no Objection staff comment would be prepared,and
<br />idistribu'ted wi th the Council agenda prior to the May 20 meeting with regard t;o, \
<br />:the Panel's recommendation on Desoto Lake Subdivision and paving Cody Avenue (C.B.545).i
<br />!The recommendation was to postpone assessment to permit resubmission of the im- , /
<br />'provement petition and notification to property owners of public hearing. Manager !
<br />said that in view of the fact the work was completed and assessment needs to be made,'
<br />,staff would like to comment on the implications of going through the procedure again.
<br />It was understood ,those perspns Objecting would be notified of discyssion of the
<br />assessment at the May 20 meeting. In response to Mrs. Campbell "s comment that the
<br />Objectors ~ere questioning whether t;hey should have legal advice, Manager said they~
<br />would have the opportunity to testify at the meeting but as t;o whether they should/
<br />have an attorne~ present, that would ~e at thei~ discretion. A/ Comrn
<br />_ . . . . . . 5 .15/74
<br />Approye
<br />See AC,tion B.elow,
<br />sewers Desoto Lake
<br />
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Coun'c':iY-BIIT j-}0~. -5l~'5'
<br />SUbdivision (73-L~0)
<br />Recommendation was to postpone assessment, go through the notification procedure,
<br />and hold public hearings again, recognizing the improvement was completed and would
<br />:have to be paid for either by the city,other property owners, or those property
<br />owners normally assessed. Staff recommended proceeding with ~evy. of assessment
<br />'or making an alternative proposal, seeing nothing to be accomplished by going
<br />I '
<br />I through the public hearing process again.
<br />]
<br />!Bill Newman, 2199 Dewey Street, told the Council he had received no notice that
<br />ithis project was to be constructed, that he know nothing of it until after the
<br />iwork was done. Manager called attention to memo from Public Works Department
<br />; explaining the notification.process on this project, both legal advertising and
<br />I~otices sent to each property owner as a matter of policy. In this instance, he
<br />I
<br />. said, because of faulty records, properties having changed hands, and subdivision
<br />I process, some notices did not reach present property owners. However, there was
<br />;.0 question about benefit to the properties from the improvement, and the notifi-
<br />cation was legally sufficient.
<br />
<br />- Levying assessments for paving and
<br />
<br />A,'
<br />W!~,
<br />
<br />\-,0,
<br />
<br />5(20(74 - 22
<br />
<br />J
<br />
|