05/20/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(CJ94\J ) . ~ouncilman Murray member of the hear~ng panel with Councilwoman Campbell, recognized ,that the legal no~ification requirements were fulfilled. However, he said he thought, tit was sufficiently confusing when four property owners did not receive notice to ~ring to the Council's attention that there was some inadequacy. Mrs. Campbell ,added that something should be done to update the County's records since they were the basis for sending notices; that Mr. Newman had owned his property since 1969. ..' , ... r , _----.. In answer to Councilwoman Beal's question about how the project was initiated, ~ Public WorKS Director explained that subdivision to the north of these properties . was petitioned. Cody Avenue was a boundary line street so was initiated on a 50% petition. He went on to explain the change in ownerships resulting.in notices going to a third party, and gave the individual assessment figures on the four properties protested. e fCouncilwoman Beal asked if there was any procedure whereby the city could assume a ipercentage of the assessment against the four properties to relieve a portion of :the levy. Manager explained the Charter provision covering assessments to abutting !properties benefitted by an improvement. If there was no benefit found or less than ifuli benefit then it would be assumed there would be a reason for not making the iassessment. He cautioned the Council that these lots did not appear to be any I 'different than many' other corner lots in_the city. And if a portion of the assess- iment was excused, it would be setting a new assessment policy. Assuming notification :had been received by the proper persons, the project would probably have gone ahead. :as it did. Mrs. Beal felt the city was at fault even though legal procedures were ;followed, and she thought the Council had the power to maJ<e some arrangement'to assume a portion of the assessment. 'Councilman McDonald felt to change the assessment would set a precedent that ~ould lead to the Council's receiving appeals asking for relief every time there Mas some similar error in the future. Councilman'Hershner agreed. He thought ;the city had followed legal notification requirements and to say those assessed ;could be relieved of a portion of the levy just because of an error in the County's ,records would be at the taxpayers' expense. As long as the law was folloVled, he said, the assessment should be levied. :Councilwoman Campbell wondered about the function of the assessment hearing panel !{0 ~0t to call the Council's attention to faulty procedural methods. She wondered ;why a hearings official wouldn't suffice. Manager replied that the Council is ;required by law to make assessments. It could delegate that function to a hearings (official, but it would then have the responsibility of accepting that recommendation !because the hearings official couldn't make the assessment. He explained that the I ;Council's function was to hear protests which might result from an assessment mayb~ !resulting from errors in fact such as frontage, square footage calculations, owner-, IShip, or questions of benefit. If there was some negative decision in tho~e , . !:instances, then there vlOuld be a basis for not making an assessment. ,~ e' i---_ . . !Councilwoman Beal thought there should be some double~check procedure to make sure present :property owners received ass'essment notices. She thought this was a unique situation meriting some adjustment in the assessment. Manager said th8re had not been a history ,of problems in getting notice to property owners. He questioned whether the expense of !spending more time on notification prior to award of bids was justified. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the city assume 25% of the assessment cost because of error. 'Manag~r suggested requesting the City Attorney's oplnlon about :action. Mayor Anderson said it would be a dangerous precedent. i:'espo::siDili ty to serve individual notice, and the notification ;caused no problems. Mrs. Beal replied 'that because it normally I , jjustified some.restitution in this instance. :Councilwoman Campbell said it occurred to her that the real function of the hearing panel !was to "take the heat off" the departments. She resented that position, she said. iShesaid too that the property owners in this instance would have to pay interest on the !assessment, whereas if they had known at the time of construction they could have accumulated money to avoid paying interest charges. , the legality of the proposed . I There was no legal . I process used nor~ally 1 was not a problem 1 I i I I i :. I iCouncilman Murray agreed that the procedure was confusing, but felt he could not vote ,:to assume a portion of the cost without setting dangerous precedent. He felt mistakes iwere a part of institutions and that the city probably made its fair share. Councilman iMcDonald couldn't see where staff had made any error. He saw the motion as setting a :very difficult practice for future assessments. Notification was not received because :of change in ownerships, he said, and that could not be controJ led by the city. Vote was taJ<en on the motion to assume 25% of assessment cost. Councilwomen Beal and Campbell voting aye; Councilmen Williams, KeJleT ans3. MUTT9Y2Qt~_ng_ nO;..~2Y-nc:Ul1lc3Jl., Wood nO!_RI'~~_en't.,__ Motion defeated, Hershner, McDonald, -----.--- ~- .' "t 5(20(74 23