Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Meeting Minutes <br />November 28, 1990 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />petitioners would be given 30 to 60 days to return <br />the petition with all property owners signing it. <br />This would protect the City from future litigation <br />of individuals wanting further reductions in their <br />assessments. In considering the 30% as a reduction <br />amount, he is looking at the legal fees that were <br />spent with regard to the petitioner. He advised <br />that 30% is similar to the sliding scale proposal <br />the Council considered approximately one month ago. <br />The 30% proposal does not put the non-petitioners <br />in a better financial situation than the <br />petitioners. Their financial situation may not be <br />as good as the petitioners, but they would not be <br />paying more than 100%, and they would be receiving <br />some benefit. Legal counsels have advised that it <br />is dangerous and difficult to reassess without <br />waivers. To reassess the non-petitioners at 30% <br />would cost the City approximately $80,000. $18,000 <br />would be an up front cost. Any decision will not <br />be considered fair by everyone, but this proposal <br />could make an attempt at trying to make the best of <br />a bad situation. <br /> <br />Council member Buckbee suggested that the City should stay with the <br />safe routes. He did not feel that the City could afford additional <br />Ii tigation at this time. He felt that 100% signatures on the <br />petition are possible but that it may be far fetched. <br /> <br />Mayor Haberman advised that the current budget is more of an issue <br />now than whether people could afford to participate in a litigation <br />in 1987. He noted that he felt he would have to go with what is <br />right, and he would feel that some reduction would be appropriate. <br />He would want to review the 30% proposal before supporting it, but <br />he would be in favor of some return to the non-petitioners so that <br />they would not be paying greater than 100% of their assessments. <br /> <br />Council member Pelton expressed concern that the City Council is <br />recei ving pressure to decrease taxes. Some services and other <br />items in the budget have been cut and that the City may have to <br />bite the bullet for some of the essential operations to the city. <br />She felt that the reduction of the reassessment is not an essential <br />service, and at this time did not appear to be in favor of such a <br />reduction. <br /> <br />The following audience members were present and asked questions and <br />gave comments regarding the proposed reassessment of non- <br />petitioners. <br />Beverly Hughes, 1793 Center Street <br />Cindy Paschke, 1740 Peltier Lake Drive <br />Mary Jane Lang, 1559 Peltier Lake Dri.-e <br />