07/08/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

He wondered if there was ever any evaluation with regard to possible GLCC action prior to Council consider.ation. Manager said there was no effort to evaluate thenwpbers of existing outlets. The city looks at the building itself from the standpoint of whether it is structurally sound, traffic problems, record of the op~rator from the police -- standpoint, etc. And if there are nearby incompatible uses, that is usually brought to the Council's attention. Vote was taken on the motion to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. (1363) F. Levying Assessments - Nelson Plat Council Bill No. 543 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Nelson Plat, and sanitary sewer in area between 450 feet west and 1000 feet west of Bertefsen Road from iith Avenue to 1000 feet south~(73-30) - read the first time on May 6, 1974, referred to Assessment Panel for May 13, 1974 hearing, brought back for consideration of recommendations on May 20, 1974 and held at that time - was brought back for consideration and read the second time by council bill number only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Manager explained that the bill had been held on May 20 at the request of Herman Hendershott, attorney for Howard Nelson, to give him the opportunity to discuss with the Public Works Department what could be errors in the assessment process itself. Public Works Department believed the assessment correct, not only in terms of measure- ments and cost but also as applied to city assessment policy. City Attorney's memo . was read stating the opinion that the assessment as proposed was correct, there was no legal basis for r~opening the hearing, nor was there anything to prevent the Council from acting affirmatively on levying. the assessment. Manager said that staff reviewed the assessment and was of the opinion that it should proceed, however the Council had the right to further discussion of the matter if it was desired. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to reopen the hearing. Motion carried unanimously. " . Public hearing was reopened. 0-407 ) Mr. Hendershott reviewed the amount of assessment involving storm sewer construction only and said his client was objecting on the basis that the 821,691 assessm~nt against his property was made in error and should be assessed to adjoining7~rop~rty. He said he and his client were expecting some conference with the Public Works' Department but to date had not been contacted by them. He felt the question raised by the City Attorney with regard to Mr. Nelson's waiver of right to object because of the agreement h~_made with the city could be settled only in the courts. He said that when Mr. Nelson signed that agreement for the improvement and assessment of Nelson Plat he did not agree to pay for improvements benefitting properties in other companies. .,.;..---,~ - - '---.,.- (A) Public hearing was closed, there .!?~ing.n9 fupt.h:=~ teS"timony. . Manager said that the Public Works Department had discussed with Mrs. Nelson, , representing Mr. Nelson, computations of the assessment and why the assessment was applied the way it was. Whether that information was relayed to Mr. Nelson and to Mr. Hendershott, of course, was not known. Apparently there had been no conference between Public Works, Mr. Hendershott, and the City Attorney's office regarding the computations. Alternatives suggested were: Public Works Director could review the challenges to the assessment filed by Mr. Nelson and the Council could become involved in that kind of discussion; the. Council could assume the staff had reviewed the Charter, ordinances, measurements, etc., and felt the assessment was correct and should proceed, expecting some sort of legal challenge; or Public Works could be asked to make direct contact with Mr. Hendershott. Manager advised that staff did feel secure in the City Attorney's opinion that the assessment was correctly made. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said the disppte was a fairly technical one. He felt an essential point was that there was contractual provision for payment of the assessment and he hoped that no part of that contract would be waived by agreeing to discuss its terms. (1517) Councilman McDonald asked if there was actually benefit to adjacent property, to ,. property other than just the Nelson Plat. Mayor Anderson asnwered that it would be better were the Council to avoid having to make a determination in that regard; that it would be better to take a proper position on the assessment in the event of further action in the courts. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to hold the bill for two weeks during which time the Public Works Department and Mr. Nelson and his attorney should discuss the matter and determine whether there were any grounds for the Council to consider alterations in the assessment, and that in adopting 23e, 7/8/74 - 7