07/16/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilman Bradley asked whether the property owners had been notified of the ... July 28 Council hearing, whether there would be administrative problems should the .., hearing be rescheduled. Mr. Saul answered that notices had not yet been sent be- cause the hearing had not yet been officially set. There would be no problems, he said, if it was rescheduled. Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Hamel to amend committee action and schedule public hearing on the Goodpasture Island General Plan amendment for the August 25, 1975 Council meeting, with written material to be submitted no later than August 15. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Anderson suggested that two hours be allowed for receiving testimony at the hearing - one hour for each side, with the provision that any time unused in the hour of one side would be added to the time for the other side. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Hamel to set time limits on receiving testimony as suggested by the Mayor. Councilman Williams said he was not aware of any Council rules that precluded the Mayor's privilege of setting rules for such things, but Mayor Anderson said he pre- ferred the Council's making the decision in this intance. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Haws expressed a desire to review the material submitted by Mr.Cleveland before consideration of the issue. It was understood the Council would review the submittal and raise any items they wished discussed as an item on a committee agenda. ~ Q. Vacation of public utility easement on southwest corner of Mahalo Drive and r'les t--.!!i l1;fj/le--!}Li T7~__ (R!}!?~:!'t f_:~C;!>rc1}sen U E:/_? 5::J.L-_ ____ _____________ __ Pla:miny COi('lIIis,c;ion l.-ccor:JT:Jendcd the vaco.Uon June 17, 1()75. CY[Jies of ma;; were distributed to Co~ncil members with agenda. Comm 7/9/75 M~. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to call public hearing Approve on the requested vacation (August 25, 1975). Motion carried unanimously. R. Cross Case, Skinner Butte - Copies of memo from Assistant Manager were distributed to Council with agenda concerning the question of appealing the Circuit Court order to remove the Cross from Skinner Butte. The memo explained basis for an appeal would be protection of the public vote declaring the Cross a war memorial and authorizing its presence on the Butte - 17,185 "Yes;" 6,009 "No." Estimated cost was $25_0 if the Council pursued an appeal independently, joining with other litigants would probably reduce that cost. Three alternatives were offered: (1) Independently and actively appeal the decision; (2) joint with other litigants and appeal; or (3) accept the decision and remove the Cross - unle~s the order was held because of appeal by others. Assistant Manager said there was some indication the "traditional" litigants were interested in appealing the decision although he was not aware of the availability of any private financing. Councilman Keller said the cost of $2500 did net appeal exorbitant in relation to the number of people voting in favor of the Charter amendment designating the Cross a war memorial. He thought the Council was obligated to those voters. . . 4It Councilwoman Shirey asked how much money had already been spent by the c~ty 2n litigation on this case and what was to keep it continuing ad infinitum. Assistant Manager answered that no really definitive costs were avilable other than the estimated $3,000 spent in the last appeal. The only alternatives were to accept the decision to remove the Cross or appeal. 7/16(75 - 20 .~c),~