02/09/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

with regard to the 5th Avenue route, high enough to judge that a hearing might dis- pose of that resistance. Councilman Bradley asked the Manager's preference, to which Manager responded that his preference had been brought to the Council. He thought that if an administrative decision was made and the project started, it might have to be undone, and he was trying to avoid that. . In response to Councilman Haws, Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said there was a 30-day period in which an appeal to the Council could be filed after the administra- tive decision was made to go~head with the project. Mr. Haws commented then that no one knows there is a decision until barricades are installed, but Manager said notices would be sent to property owners involved, although such notices are not always re- ceived. Mr. Haws preferred the established procedure - the Manager's making the deci- sion - then holding a public hearing before the Council if an appeal is filed, thereby avoiding two public hearings. Councilman Bradley wondered if the motion would accomplish that, to which Mr. Keller responded that if the motion carried, it was assumed the decision to go ahead with the project would be made, then any appeal would be heard by the Council. Councilwoman Beal said she would vote against the motion. decision to staff would only result in the issue's coming Coucnilman Murray supported the motion. He said it would tive dicision, only the extra hearing. She thought handing the back to the Council anyway. not eliminate the administra- Vote was' taken on the motion to delete Item E from the consent calendar. Motion carried - Council members Keller, Haws, Williams, Murray, Bradley, and Hamel voting aye; Councilwoman Beal voting no; Councilwoman Shirey not present. - F . - Segregation of As.!iessrrents I.Tax Lot 03500 - (SE 75-10), Bob F. and Elizabeth Bayly (Spring B1vd,N.Shasta Loop) 2.Tax Lot 11400 ~ (SE 76-1), Paul A. Foust (NW corner Cody and Wisconsin) Mr. Haws roved secopded by Mr. Williams to approve the above segregations of assessrrents. Motion carried unanirous1y. G. - Policy Revisions in Rentals of Park S-uildIngs- - Suggested rev:lsTonswere distributed to Council with the January 21 -agenda. Comm 2/4/76 Approve Manager noted the fees listed on the policy sheet are those currently in effect. Discussion now centers around interest by the revision commdttee on whether or not the political group fee should be equalized with educational and civic group fees. In addition, the Parks meeting facilities have been divided into two groups: Programmed Facilities (Amazon, Sheldon, WestllOre1and and Campbell Centers) and Non-Programmed Facilities (Lamb Cottage and Laure1wood Meeting Hall). Manager noted the committee and staff are not in full agreerrent on the suggested changes. Staff reports that, with a11lOst no exceptions, higher fees are charged partisan groups in other park systems. On the other hand, the council committee feels that, to encourage constructive political activity, the fees should be equalized. The Manager noted that, in view of the current budget crunch, there is a question whether all fees should perhaps be raised. Also to be considered, perhaps, is the impact on the use of the rooms .at Ci ty Hall by various groups, free of charge, and whether it should be made clear that there is a distinction. 4IIr Mrs. Shirey, who served on the policy committee, said council input was desired -and that the committee has reclassified political groups but has not addressed how they should be charged. 2/9/76 - 16 78