|
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />necessities had not been followed in this proceeding. Can you
<br />clarify that?
<br />
<br />MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members,of:the Council, as the
<br />Gould letter was read, being a lawyer myself, I gathered that it
<br />was the boiler-plate type of language. You make allegations.
<br />Obviously the Council, in considering the letter, must consider
<br />the points they have raised. But remember, all it is is an alle-
<br />gation rather than a statement of fact that must be provable
<br />later. As to the procedural item, we followed the same procedure
<br />here that we have in our other issues. The Council has had a
<br />resolution, it's had a preliminary report, the report has come
<br />back, they set the hearing, there's been published notice, there's
<br />been actual notice, there's been mailed notice, the people are
<br />here. Due process, from a procedural point of view, has been
<br />followed so far as I have been able to ascertain as our office
<br />has had the interchange with the City staff. So I don't see
<br />that as a problem at all. It's an allegation without any speci-
<br />ficity given as to where we failed. I don't believe we have
<br />failed and it would have to be proven that our office or the City
<br />staff was wrong somewhere and that we slipped up. One other com-
<br />ment while I'm on my feet - as you know, while there was no peti-
<br />tion, as such, the fact of the matter is, the law does not
<br />require a petition. The purpose of a petition, of course, is to
<br />initiate a project that comes that route, but the CounciL, on
<br />its own initiative, can initiate something for public discussion.
<br />It doesn't mean it's going to go through, but it has the same
<br />effect. The difference, however, then when there's a petition,
<br />as the Council knows - maybe all the people here don't - if a
<br />petition comes in you only need three votes out of five. But
<br />when the Council initiates it you need four out of five. I'm
<br />sure, Wayne, if you review the law, you know the Local Improve-
<br />ment Code provides for that. The other aspect on which I thought
<br />there would be more of a discussion - obviously we gave the
<br />worst picture, 100%. Under the law, in order to sell bonds
<br />without a vote of the people, we have to assess at least 20%.
<br />But the Council has the discretion, looking at the benefits, and
<br />obviously that's something that we determine in actuality against
<br />each parcel prior to the assessment hearing. These are just
<br />estimates at this particular point in time. Somewhere between
<br />the 20% and the 100%, you might have a different variety'. All
<br />the people might get up and say, we'd go for it if it were 20%
<br />assessed, the Council on the other hand would say 80% is too
<br />much to put on general taxes for the City as a whole. On the
<br />other hand, (inaudible) we go for 75%, you pick up 25%, that's
<br />a matter for Council determination. Now, whether that goes to
<br />feasibility or not, it really goes to the assessment propriety
<br />and whether or not the benefit is there. Obviously we assess
<br />property based on benefits. We're assuming, for purposes of
<br />tonight's meeting, that all of the property will be assessed to
<br />the extent of 100% of the improvement. That, of course, is
<br />where, rather than just making an allegation that there is no
<br />benefit, they would show where there are no benefits.
<br />
<br />MAYOR CRICHTON: Do we have any further comments or ques-
<br />tions from the Council?
<br />
<br />9
<br />
|