Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-14-1965 Minutes77 ;. PASCO, WASHINGTON COUNCIL CHAMBERS SPECIAL MEETING CALL TO ORDER: JUNE 149 1965 Meeting was called, to order at 8:00 P.M. (PDST) by the Honorable G.E. Carter, Mayor. ROLL CALL: By Clerk. Councilmen present were G.E. Carter, J.G. Bailey, C.F. Griggs, George P. Stork and Russell Wiseman. Councilman Greenlee arrived at 8:08 P.M. and Councilman Robinson arrived at 8:09 P.M. Also present for this meeting were City Manager Menasco, City Attorney Campbell and City Engineer George Fisher. NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING: Mayor Carter read the Notice of Special Meeting as follows: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there will be a Public Hearing at the hour of 8:00 P.M. (PDST), June 14, 1965 in the Council Chambers of Pasco City Hall, at which time all persons concerned may present their approval of, or objections to, the proposed L.I.D. as set forth and provided for; in Resolution No. 644. Esther Schlagel, City Clerk Mayor Carter also pointed out that this had been published in the paper on May 27th and 28th, together Resolution No. 644 in its entirety. There was also publicity given this notice on the local radio stations and on K.E.P.R. - TV. PUBLIC HEARING: Mayor Carter declared the Public Hearing Open and introduced Mr. Menasco, the City Manager, and requested that he give an explanation of the work project and the financial provisions of this ;:proposed L.I.D. through the aid of maps, charts, and posters, Mr. Menasco explained the entire picture of this proposed L.I.D.-- including the areas to be improved, the amounts in proportion of assessment to properties for their special benefits and explained the zone and termini method of assessment, together with all provisions of public hearing - both on the preliminary and final step of an L.I.D. He invited questions and answered all that were presented to him. The Mayor requested comments from the floor favoring the L.I.D. At this point, more questions were presented to the City Manager for further explanation of side - street assessments, etc. The Mayor requested comments from the floor protesting the formation of an L.I.D. At this time, also, Mayor Carter invited those individuals who had written protests to file to please send them to the front of the room so that they could be tabulated. This was done. The City Manager stated to the Mayor and Council and to the individuals present that this procedure on the L.I.D. is the most unusual he has ever seen. The City sent out preliminary assessment notices and we received an answer from one lady saying that she thought this was a fine idea and enclosed a check in full for the preliminary assessment amount. RON PASSAGE stated that he had checked through the assessment roll and found at least ten people who have sold their homes and have still received the preliminary assessment notice. He stated that this would be inadequate as far as protests are concerned. (These notices were mailed out in conformity with the ownerships as received from the records at the Franklin County Courthouse). City Attorney commented that it is up to the property owner to have these recordings made at the Court House and that this is where we must take our assessment roll names and addresses from. DR. MICHAEL stated that he had lived at his place of residence for eight years and had purchased two years previously. His notice was addressed to Opal Street and he actually lives and has lived at 729 W. Brown. The Opal Street address was in- correct. FRED RUTT stated that he had not received his notice until the previous Saturday as it was addressed to a Pearl Street address and he actually lived at 716 W. Court and this notice should have been mailed to that address. LINCOLN NEWELL, 1028 W. Henry, asked was this petition first signed and sent to ca 78 PASCO, WASHINGTON too, COUNCIL CHAMBERS SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 149 1965 the City. Answer: This is correct. It was Mr. Newell's understanding that this just covered Marie, Octave and Brown from Aurelia over to 4th. He questioned why Henry, Arthur and 5th, Margaret and Clark included in this project. The City Manager answered that the original petition was presented and that the supplementary petition came in time to be included in the same project. The supplementary petition, Arthur 6 5th from Yakima to the alley north of Margaret; also Margaret Street from Arthur to 4th and Clark Street from Arthur to 4th. The City further received a request from the schools primarily to improve Aurelia Street and Henry Street adjacent to their property. A portion of Henry Street from Aurelia to 4th and Octave from Arthur to 4th and Marie from Arthur to 4th were added by the City to fill out the street pattern in the area.... LEE BONNETT questioned when the School District petitioned for improvement of streets. Members of this L.I.D. area had contacted the school and requested them to join with them. There was, however, no signed petition by the School. The School Board's position is that they will go along with the majority if the majority wants the improvement. Because the School Board had not signed the petition, it was probably felt that they did not disapprove, however, if these people do not want the improvement, the School District will oppose. MRS. RUTT stated that she had never been contacted with a petition. L.A. MERK, 527 W. Yakima was never contacted with a petition. THURSTON KIMBRELL, 818 W. Marie questioned why this street needed to be widened and mentioned that it was his understanding that the Chief of Police objects to angle parking in that area. He requested a tabulation of the objections presented at the meeting. Mayor Carter requested a tabulation of the objections and pointed out that this is the purpose of the hearing to determine whether or not the people actually want this District formed. It is the City's wish to go which- ever direction the individual property owners indicate. D.S. GARBUTT, 812 W. Octave read a personal letter to the Council and requested that it be made a part of the record of this meeting as follows: "It was my understanding when I signed a petition to the City Council for the purpose of creating a LID it was to cover Octave Street from Aurelia to Fourth. Also including Marie Street from Aurelia.to.Fourth and Brown Street from Aurelia to Arthur Street. This petition was for paving of the streets. On May 29, 1965 I received a letter under the signature of Esther Schlagel, City Clerk outlining some of the things proposed in your Resolution 644 and quoting preliminary prices assessed against my property. This letter does not explain what benefits are to be rendered for the amount assessed which is $979.44 for a 60 ft. front. On June 4, 1965 another letter was received from Esther Schlagel, City Clerk in which she informed me of the purpose of the pre- liminary hearing for the forming of a LID and also the procedure in filing a protest against such LID. This letter did not contain any information as to what benefit3 my property was to receive. After some investigation and study of Resolution 644 and examination of the plans and specifications, I will not support Unit No. I of the Resolution. Accept this letter as a strong protest against Resolution No. 644 for the following reasons, 1. The Council has arbitrarily amended the original petition for LID, without the consent of the petitioners are any hearing thereon. 2. Widening of Octave St. for diaggnal parking is not justified. 3. About 1948 when the City accepted Octave St. in Sylvesters 2nd addition they were satisfied with the layout of the street, now 17 years later they wish to pass the expense involved in widening on to the property owners. 4. The preliminary prices quoted are unreasonable for resurfacing, paving, storm gutters, removing of parking strip and trees for widening of the street. 5. The amount of traffic now using Octave St. a semi -dead end street does not justify all the improvements and expenses involved. 6. The City Council has laid to one side the original petitions for a LID and have submitted a plan or Resolution of their own thoughts. do PASCO$ WASHINGTON COUNCIL CHAMBERS SPECIAL MEETING D.S. GARBUTT.- CONTINUED: JUNE 14, 1965 7. The Resolution submitted covers a lot of streets and should be a project for a Bond issue not a LID. I personally recognize the need for some street improvement, also I believe a more equitable method can be found, such as a bond issue sufficiently large enough to take care of the city streets in need of permanent improvement now. The assessment plan as proposed will make it more difficult for the property owners to dispose of their ':.property, also create financial hardships. Since a large number of city taxpayers have had excellent streets built by the City at public expense in front of their property, it would be unjust to force others to pay for street improvements now. Streets used by the public should be im- proved by public funds when needed. The plans and specifications as.proposed in the Ordinance or so called Resolution No. 644, are too elaborate, unnecessary, and too high priced. Extravagance is displayed in the highest form. It appears that some one is trying to sell or force a bill of goods in improvements onto the property owners. The monthly or annual income of the greatest numbers of owners does not warrant incurring such indebtness. I implore the City Council to reconsider their previojs action and to repeal Resolution No. 644. Provided, the Council does not repeal the Resolution, they will have to accept the responsibility of creating an unjustified economic. condition and lower purchasing power on a large majority of the owners. Enactment of Resolution No. 644 into law will create Ill will, suspicion, and dissension. Being a resident of Pasco intermittently since 1928 and a property owner from 1936, in all honesty and fairness I must condemn and object to Resolution No. 644." Mayor Carter answered for clarification that the City did not write the petition; secondly, that there were three petitions we did not arbitrarily add to the pro- gram - the only thing the City did do was to square off and add Henry (an L.I.D. proposal can be lowered but cannot be extended once started). MR. ARNOLD - Because of the side street assessment, he is in opposition although he was favoring. ROBERT TOBIN, 719 Brown protests the width of the street and angle parking. MARY R. BROWN - 931 W. Brown stated that it was her opinion on the original petition that it was a three block improvement and also her understanding that the individual property owners could change their -plans and turn down the L.I.D. proposition after they have been advised -of the cost. It is her impression that because of the extended area, they now are required to have 60% protest to kill the proposed L.I.D. She expressed the opinion that this was unfair. Mayor Carter answered that the only reason for lumping them together was to save money, getting a better price on a larger job. JIM WESTERFIELD 716 W. Octave stated when the petitioner called at his house, the petition was misrepresented - the cost was quoted to be not over $9.00 a foot. MRS. JENNIE BELLE WALSH - 932 W. Brown wondered why the cost was so high - Kennewick had the same specifications for streets for a cost of $7.65 a foot including side- walks, streets, gutters in the vicinity of the Highlands on Anderson Street. GEORGE GOULET - 823 W. Marie asked the City Manager what were the.specifications. on the paving. Answer: 2" of hot mix or asphaltic concrete paving on top of 3" of crushed rock base. This is recommended paving depth for our particular climate according to Washington State Public Works Association' -Design Standards. MR.FREDRICKSON - 707 W. Octave stated when he signed the petition, it was the under- standing that it was for the purpose of determining at the time the City was improving the other streets what it would cost at that time to go in with a request to have it done, but that it was not a petition for an L.I.D. MRS. RIEMATH - Court Street wondered why she was assessed on Court when Court had just been done. This is a side street assessment (Aurelia Street). JIM WESTERFIELD 716 W. Octave stated when the petitioner called at his house, the petition was misrepresented - the cost was quoted to be not over $9.00 a foot. MRS. JENNIE BELLE WALSH - 932 W. Brown wondered why the cost was so high - Kennewick had the same specifications for streets for a cost of $7.65 a foot including side- walks, streets, gutters in the vicinity of the Highlands on Anderson Street. GEORGE GOULET - 823 W. Marie asked the City Manager what were the.specifications. on the paving. Answer: 2" of hot mix or asphaltic concrete paving on top of 3" of crushed rock base. This is recommended paving depth for our particular climate according to Washington State Public Works Association' -Design Standards. t PASCO, WASHINGTON COUNCIL CHAMBERS SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 14, 1965 We could have gone to 1 1/2" with 3 1/2" of sub base for -a total of 511. That would be the absolute minimum. BOB LUFT - 811 W. Henry has lived at that address for five years and at least once a month an accident occurs at that street. The students attending the school use the street as a speedway and he recommends a stop sign at every intersection of that street from there to the Courthouse. MR. RUTT - requested further information as to why his property was included in the L.I.D. The City Manager explained it was a sidestreet assessment for the improvement on 5th. MR. BORDYNOSKI - 911 W. Henry protests the widening of the street and removal of six big trees. WILLIAM NEFF - 804 Henry stated he felt the same way about the widening and removal of trees. MRS. S.J. NESBITT - 928 W. Brown wondered why it was proposed to put islands in the street. Answer: To slow down the entry traffic. COUNTY COMMISSIONER ALLSTROM representing Franklin County. The County owns Block 7 between Brown and Marie. The County was in favor of that. The Commissioners would like to see Henry Street vacated; the County is not opposed to the improve- ment but are opposed to the cost in comparison with State Engineering Costs. S.J. NESBITT - 928 W. Brown is in favor of Brown Street staying as is. JOAN STILES 808 Henry wants the street left just as is, trees and all. OUR LADY OF LOURDES HOSPITAL - The City Manager reported that on this date, the City has received a petition from the Hospital Administration requesting that Park Street be vacated from 4th to Arthur. WALTER OBERST - 716 W. Henry stated most of his questions have been answered. He stated he is very appreciative of the City having removed "Grays Harbor" from in front of Captain Gray School. He stated he liked the trees on Henry but does not wish.to see Henry stay just as it is. He is in favor of pavement and sidewalks and complimented the Mayor on the courteous manner in which he has handled the meeting. RICHARD MAURSTAD - 828 W. Octave stated he had signed a petition protesting as it had been proposed to him on the original petition. In Sylvesters 2nd, they favor improvement but not angle parking. Mayor Carter stated that angle parking had been requested on the petition and was, therefore,*used in com- puting the assessments. CURTIS HALL - 911 Brown Street stated he did not think this was a fair petition. He states there should be another and different petition. City Attorney explained that angle parking assessments were against the properties benefitted by the angle parking and that should these individuals not want this, then angle parking could be stricken. The Resolution was made broad enough to incorporate all the ideas that were presented to the City in the petition itself. MR. BAUDER - 729 W. Yakima questioned the variety of widths of the individual streets. The City Manager answered. ED BUCKINGHAM - 732 W. Marie questioned if the sidewalks and curbs were torn out for this street widening program, who would pay for the replacement. The City Manager answered it is replaced under the contract. It is added to the total cost of the whole district. There would be very few cases of this nature. RON PASSAGE - 908 W. Brown says the prices are way out of line and that it can be done for much less. BEN SULLIVAN - 804 W. Marie does not favor streets being narrowed nor does he favor islands. WAYNE McGUFFIN - 527 W. Yakima questioned what was necessary to stop the L.I.D. and what was necessary to go ahead with the project for formation of an L.I.D. Also wondered how much City property was involved. The City Manager and the Mayor C� ONO n 1 1 1 •Yti:: rM PASCO$ WASHINGTON COUNCIL CHAMBERS SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 141 1965 answered questions. RUTH STUCKEY - (Unit II) wondered why Unit II was included with Unit I. The City Manager answered the question that this was for convenience for savings on notice fees, etc. ROBERT TOBIN requested Mr. Fisher to make some comments on &..:question and answer basis. The cost of the street was discussed; the zone and termini was touched on again; angle parking; the width of the street; ANd Wayne Campbell also stated that to defeat the petition for formation of an L.I.D., there must be 61% of the total .cost of the improvement. It was requested from the floor that a tabulation of the protests be presented (of those submitted at this meeting). At the time of meeting opening, there 37 written protests amounting to $66,858.36. The City Manager agreed to tabu- late the protests which were presented at the meeting for a report later. NEIL SMILEY requested permission to speak - stating that he did not live in the area did live in an area which was improved approximately seven years ago. He feels there are a couple of points of interest. He stated that when he received his assessment, it was a large figure, but with the annual payment, it does not "hurt", and that he is very happy with the street improvement as a method of financing. LEE BONNETT speaking for the School Board stated that he wished to be clarified that if the majority of the people protest the L.I.D., the School Board will do likewise and if the majority are favoring, then the School Board would favor; from the floor, it was mentioned that if the School Board took this position, then the school properties would be deducted from the project in this individual's estimation. Mr. Allstrom also spoke --stating on behalf of the Franklin County Commissioners that if the majority of the people favor, then the County would likewise. GEORGE MORGAN states he signed the original petition for this for the street to be paved only (822 Octave). He stated he was not against the project as a whole but was against removal of curbs, etc., all he wanted was a little bit of blacktop. CITY ATTORNEY answered a question of Councilman Wiseman as follows: It would be his advice that when the Council reviews this meeting, if they have changed the intent and structural work that was set forth, that they dismiss Resolution No. 644, start with a new Resolution --encompassing the new plans and have agreed estimations and start all over. If you only make minor changes, this would not be necessary. The Resolution is broad enough to allow you to proceed with the next Ordinance and either add or subtract the part they desire. M.R. DENNY stated it had been mentioned many times that they would like to have the street in front of their place paved. He stated that he objected to this - that there is a definite need for drainage. He stated that he signed the petition against the project and that now is sorry he did so; he would like to have his street paved with gutter, drainage, etc., and that he would be willing to ply $15 or $20 a foot, but that paving is impractical without drainage. It was mentioned from the floor that because of the approved plats, Octave Street should not be widened. MAYOR CARTER. There was not sufficient time at the meeting to tabulate the dollars and cents protests submitted; however, there were 158 written protests submitted at the meeting. This will definitely be considered before going ahead with this project. MR. THOMPSON (County Engineer)made the following comments at the request of Councilman Griggs. Looking at the project that has been designed, these figures are O.K. Mr. Fisher designed the project that was given to him on the basis of the original petiti "n. ' f the petitioners &d n "t understand what they were petitioning for, that is not the design engineer's fault. This may be an ex- pensive project but this is what was asked for in the petition. If you want a lessor character of street, then this is what should be asked for. The estimate cost is not out of order. GEORGE R. FISHER, City Engineer stated that it was his understanding that the request was to pay this L.I.D. over a twenty year period. In order to set it up 8 PASCO, WASHINGTON COUNCIL CHAMBERS SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 140 1965 on that basis, I would have to certify to the bonding companies that the expected life of improvement would be at least twenty years. If you wish to go to the lessor or lower standard of improvement, I would -not certify it unless the pay period was cut down accordingly. J.G. BAILEY states he is sure that these people would not be at the Public Hearing unless they were interested in streets. It was his observation that there are two things involved; (1) the original petitioners were not aware that additional streets could be added by subsequent petitions; (2) the costs that were objected to were because of certain improvements on the streets that some of these people do not wantwhich increased the costs of the streets. It -is now the duty of the Council to evaluate the objections. If there are more people against the project than for it, then it would be "dead" and would have to be initiated again at some other time if the people so desired. F] LYLE NEFF 903 Octave, states he was one of the original instigators of the petition. He is not in favor of the present proposition with the present costs, but he would like to get paving in the area. He would like to see improvement in the original petition area, north of Henry --possibly some lower standard and shorter time for payment. It was suggested from the floor that before another petition was submitted, that someone from the City be in attendance at the discussion meeting of citizens involved so that it can get started on the right foot. MAYOR CARTER DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. ADJOURNMENT: Motion made by Bailey, seconded by Wiseman to adjourn. ATTEST: f� Esther Schlagel, City Cler PASSED and APPROVED this.,_...46_ ....day Y G.E. Carter, Mayor of ' , 1965. City Clerk 1 1