Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Hartley recalled that at Council's last regular meeting they indicated that <br />they would discuss the proposed sewer and water project at this special meeting <br />if a petition were not received; if a petition is received, they would handle <br />action on the project at the regular Council meeting for January. Mr. Rartley <br />stated that two petitions have been received; one in favor of and one opposed <br />to the project. Mr. Hartley submitted the petitions and by doing so, the <br />opportunity for individuals to withdraw and/or add their names to either of the <br />petitions is terminated at the close of this Council meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley referred to Mr. Goodrich's memo to City Council dated January 6, <br />1987 advising Council of their options with regards to the project and any <br />future projects which might be related to this project. Those options are: 1) <br />Drop the project entirely; 2) Amend the scope of the project so that it is no <br />longer the "same project" and resubmit it through the special assessment <br />process again. 3) Proceed with an amended project utilizing Chapter 444. Mr. <br />Hartley stated that if Council chooses to proceed utilizing Chapter 444, a <br />complete and written preliminary report should be obtained frc~ the City's bond <br />cousel stating that tax increment financing can be used in conjunction with <br />Chapter 444. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley informed Council that the Economic Development Commission met on <br />January 5 and the tone of that meeting was that working with the property <br />owners who have made their wishes known by signing a petition is more prevalent <br />than proceeding with a project without oonsulting them at all. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cox suggested meeting with and getting written suggestions from <br />the property owners on ways the project could be changed so as to be more <br />favorable. <br /> <br />Councilmember Sorteberg expressed concern with whether the City should consider <br />or can afford to install utilities utilizing Chapter 444 when it appears from <br />the petition favoring the project that only 5-6 properties will be connecting <br />to the services. <br /> <br />Councilm~nber Cox noted that although there is opposition to the project, <br />there is also an urging for develo~ent in the rest of that industrial area, <br />there has been an interest in utilities expressed by property owners on the <br />south side of Hwy. ~10 and there is the landfill with an element of <br />contamination to consider. <br /> <br />Clayton Berg - Noted that it has been said that 5 property owners signed the <br />petition favoring the sewer and water project; how many property owners signed <br />the petition to deny the project and what is the significance of that according <br />to the Charter? <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich replied that there were not a sufficient number of signatures on <br />the petition favoring the project to counter the denial petition; the petition <br />to deny stands. The City Charter states that when a qualifying petition to <br />deny a project has been received, the City cannot act on the same improvement <br />for a period of one year from the date of the last public hearing on that <br />improvement. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Cox and seconded by Councilmember DeLuca authorizing <br />City staff to obtain a written report from the City's bond counsel regarding <br /> City Council/January 6, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 8 of 12 <br /> <br /> <br />