07/11/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-- ---- Ms. Smith expressed her original desire to exempt non-profit organizations e on an individual basis, but was pursuaded that to exempt such a class of organizations would be too broad. She noted that the City needs the income provided by the systems development tax. She said she was willing to support the Manager's recommendation to not exempt anyone particular non-profit organization. Manager said he would write a letter to the Easter Seal School explaining the Council's action. V. PEDESTRIAN EASEMENTS (Staff Report Distributed on Number of Unimproved Pedestrian Easements) Manager said this issue had been raised by the Council when they had been reviewing a specific request for a vacation of a pedestrian/bike easement. The Planning Commission recommended that if not vacated, it should be improved. The Council requested information on other methods of financing other than direct assessments of the property owners, since there is little benefit to the abutting property owners. Manager referred Council to the memorandum showing 17 pedestrian ways needing improvement, four future improvement, and nine for vacation. The total Ci ty cost woul d be $88,500. For the five-foot walk, the owner would pay one-third. I f the paving was over five feet, the City would pay the added cost. Manager suggested the City would work on this in next year's capital improvement program. In the meantime, the City could reconsider the assessment ordinance, bring it back for a public hearing and a final decision. e In answer to Ms. Miller's question concerning the developer's responsi- bility, Mr. Gilman said most of these easements are over ten years old. New easements are not the problem because they are paved by the developer and the cost is added to the cost of development. Councilors Hamel, Lieuallen, and Delay expressed a desire to consider each case individually. Manager felt the vote of the Planning Commission might be affected if there were a different financial arrangement. Possible changes in the assessment law ought to be considered and referred to the Planning Commission, along with some of the individual cases. The staff coul d then consider those which are critical and wait on the others to be brought to the attention of the City. Manager reque s ted Counc i 1 to formalize a financial proposal in ordinance form. and to look at those that need improvement and get them to the Planning Commission. Councilors' Obie and lieuallen expressed a desire to look at the financial responsibilities of each case individually. Manager noted there is a six- month lag time for implementing changes in financing policy under terms of the Charter and law on changing assessment practices. If the ordinance were passed, it woul d not take effect unti 1 six months later. The Planning Commission, currently, has no leeway for adjustment in these cases. It is a choice of the vacation or the abutting owners must pay for the improvement. The City cannot pay. e 7/11/79--7 379