My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-21-2015 CCM
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Minutes
>
City Council 1974 - Present
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
12-21-2015 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/5/2016 9:02:03 AM
Creation date
1/5/2016 9:01:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
CCM
date
12/21/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City Council Minutes <br />December 21, 2015 <br />9.2 Public Purpose Presentation <br />Page 7 <br />Attorney Beck stated courts have been very protective regarding right-of-way for <br />cities. He further explained there must be a benefit to the public in order to vacate <br />right-of-way. Attorney Beck explained public purpose as a legislative function versus <br />a judicial function and noted courts tend not to interfere on legislative action of a <br />Council. He stated a vacation can occur via the Council or through a lawsuit. He <br />stated Council also needs to consider the potential future benefits of a right-of-way. <br />Attorney Beck stated long-term non-use of a right-of-way does not mean it is in the <br />interest of the public to give it up. He further noted cases involving water are <br />considerably stronger and courts are overly protective of water access for the public. <br />He stated Council should not vacate Iand unless it's useless for its purpose. <br />Attorney Beck noted there is an alternative to giving up a right-of-way via a licensing <br />agreement. He stated this gives the Council more flexibility and could be granted or <br />taken away at any time. <br />9.3 Park Dedication Fee <br />Mr. Carlton presented the staff report. <br />Council discussed the pros and cons of the various options available for collecting <br />park dedication fees. <br />Staff recommendation was to keep the options for commercial/industrial and <br />residential collection similar for ease of operating internally. <br />Council consensus is as follows: <br />1) Calculate the fee for commercial/industrial based on the county assessor's <br />appraisal because their values tend to remain stable. The rate for <br />commercial should be calculated at 8% and at G% for industrial. <br />2) Obtain private appraisals for residential for a certain number of years to be <br />determined. Use a graduated calculation scale based on density/unit <br />types. Staff directed to gather pricing on private appraisals. <br />Councilmember Olsen expressed concerns with utilizing a private assessor because <br />they tend to have biases. <br />9.4 Attendance for Boards/Corn missions <br />Council discussed the current policy regarding attendance for boards. Council liked <br />the idea of tracking attendance on a percent of the number of meetings missed by a <br />board member and also tracking when a member shows up late to a meeting. <br />P/I' EAEI It <br />NATURE <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.