1982-10-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1316, Minutes Page 9 October 11, 1982 primary or secondary. Mr. Ollendorff said,that would be up to the Council, but he recommended not excluding any street, commenting that he did not think exceptions should be made in advance. There was brief discussion concerning the number of years to be included in the policy, Ms Anne Bourdet, 7108 Northmoor, asked to address the Council. Ms Bourdet asked if she understood correctly that although a public hearing would be held when a specif- ic street was to be improved, citizens would not have recourse or any way to stop the policy once it had been established by Council. Mr. Oilendorff said citizens would have several choices--they could agree to pay their portion, they could refuse to pay and the street would not be rebuilt, or they could argue that there was more than residential traffic and the street should be considered a through artery with the City paying the entire cosh Ms Bourdet agreed with Mrs. Thompson that a pub- lic hearing should be held now, before the policy was established, since it will cover all of University City and not just the citizens on Linden. Mr. Adams pointed out that a public hearing would bring out the fact that residents in University City would not be affected equally by this policy, since some streets are much older than others and may need major reconstruction within a relatively short time. Mr. Schoomer asked if he was correct in assuming that all such street reconstruc- tion would be initiated by petition of the residents. Mr. Ollendorff said that was correct; however, the Council may also, by Charter, propose the improvement of any street. The practice for the past 15 years has been not to impose assessments on streets that have not been petitioned by their residents. Mr. Lieberman pointed out that the Council has occasionally initiated the petition. Mayor Mooney asked if there were any way of removing Linden Avenue from the discus- sion and treating it separately. Mr. Ollendorff said his thought in asking the Council to discuss a policy rather than just Linden was a question of basic fair- ness. He thought residents should share a small portion of the cost since their property would be enhanced and improved in value. However, he did not feel those on Linden should be charged and not residents on other streets to be rebuilt. Mr. Lieberman asked if the Clayton residents on Linden were being charged, and Mr. 0llendorff said they were. It was brought out that the long-term policy in Clayton was consistently to charge adjacent property owners for street improvements. Mrs., Metcalfe said the Council was faced with several choices--Linden must be im- proved and the City had the opportunity to do it at savings. It would be a foolish management decision to delay since it would cost the City money, she said. However, the City Manager was recommending a new policy which will apply not only to Linden but to the entire City, and the question was whether or not the Council was ready to institute this policy. She pointed out that the more streets that are done with- out a policy, the more difficult it would be to put a policy into effect. Mre Lieberman asked for a legal opinion on whether the proposed policy would be af- fected by the Hancock Amendment. Mre Ollendorff said this question was researched and it was felt the Hancock Amendment had no jurisdiction, since the City's Charter specified that this charge was a special assessment and not a tax, fee, license or service charge, all of which are included in the Hancock Amendment.