04/14/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

^e In re!f'ponse to Council(an Bradley, Nr. Teitze1 said present policy provided 'for qei~~ral only (oJ/len r....operty was more than 160 feet fror:! i/ rOi/d and ('/hen the tJt:::Jerment IvclSin the F;,::!S t inte['(:~sts of the ci ty, h'h.i c); US:;(U 11 y r.;'~:1i1 t an easerr:ent from the pr'op\:!rty o;m,:!'r. Hr. Brc1(ll'.:!y tho~lght the polic'} issue should be reviewed. He didn't feel eJ.ther Georgia Pacific or the Gisborne property was benefited by the sewer on 1st Avenue. Recommendcltion: Nr. Bradley recommended that the Georgia IJacific and Gisborne properties not be aSsessed for the 1st Avenue sel>,er, that the issue should be re~ sol vcd by the! full CO!.lnci 1 as to !v'lz~ t I'/as con- sidered "benefit" to a property. Nr. lIi/me1 "acJl'ecd but disagC'eed" nvcause he fel t Council policy should be adhered to even though the sewer didn't seem to be of benefit to the properties. Conclusion was that the question would have to be further discussed by tile enti re Counc:il. e M~. Mattison then brought up 'the assessments levied fOr sewer connections and si/id he objected also to tIle method of distributing those c1wrgc:s. Mr. Teitzel noted that if the Council decided to fol101~ the pa~el's recommenda- tio/l, thc.' enUre as~'_'ssll/enl: l'Iould have to be repeatv(] necaus(.' each as.sessment ; WOII.ld hiJvo to h0 n,,'c:alculatec1,' new not:.ic:cs of hQ..lring sent, etc. "here I>'as ! SOniC d isclIssion WllCU/(.'r the i!;sue ,,'ouid IJe further discussed il/ commi ttee, or at the IIfJd J 1-1 COIIIlC,i.1 IIIC:'OUtl(! l'lith C!):p.lanation that tl'lO-thirds vote o[ tI'e ' .... . - ~ '. . .. . . Council wo'uld be'"requi.;ed to re~p~n the hearing at tIle Council level. Nr. Mattison said he would not be able to attend the Wednesday committee meeting, but he' had no objection to Council discussion at that time since he felt he had stated his objecti~ns. 7. C.B.774 - Lev There were no lev in 2nd Addition to Shasta Gardens (74-1002) protests or requests to be heard. Recommenda tion:' Levy assessments as proposed. 8. Levyin special sewer lev - Fred Meyer PUD (75-l000) There were no written prote~ts or requests. to be heard. Recommendation: Levy assessment as proposed. Copies of the report were distributed to Council members. Assistant Manager sug- ,gested delaying consideration of this report, in view of its length and haVing just been received by Council members, until the April 23 committee meeting, This would require also setting over consideration of final passage of the assessment ordinances to the April 28 Council meeting. -e Mr. Hamel moved seconded by Mr. Murray to postpone discussion of the hearing panel report until April 23 committee meeting, and to set over consideration of final passage of the assessment ordinances covered by that report to the April 28 Counci.1 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 4/9/75 Affirm It was understood staff would prepare a memorandum with regard to issues raised by the hearing panel. . . \~,\ 4/14/75 - 39