HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 1964-02-24 56
There being no further business, on motion of,Councilman Moty, seconded
-_ by Councilman Denny the meeting was adjourned until Monday, February 24th,
1964 at 7:00 P,. M. _ .
APPR�D'�ED:
// ,
i� / , ;
� i . � � ; � _
_ � _ _ � � � . '/� ,� � ,, �`-
_ _ _� . _ .Mayor,. � `
Attest:
1; /� _ . � . ` , .
r�l�`'?�-�- .� .�-y�-�%'
�.. City C er.k � _ � _ _� , .
_ _ , � _ � ; , - .
_ City Gouncil, .Adjourned Meeting
` J � � ` Police Dept. & Council Chambers
,. _ _. _ Building. � _
` ` � � � Redding, Cal'ifornia ` . ` `
� � February,24, 1964 7:00 P. M.
. � _: � �_, , . , __.
The.me.eting was called�to order by Mayor Martin with the following councilmen
present: Chatfield, Denny;� Kriegsman, Moty arid Martiri.` �
Also present were City Manager Cowden, City Attorney.Murphy�, Assistant City
Manager and Director of Finance` Courtney, Purchasing Di`rector Stewart,
_ Planning.Director Keyes and Director of Public Works A`rness. `
The following persons signed the Register: �� � � �
Jack Alward Mrs. R. �. Stariley
John Alward W. H. Nelson
Tom Trigg ` . ` Harry .Parsons - `
� George .Sinner �
RESOLUTION -`Granting 1Von-Exclusive Franchise to Finer Living, Inc.
There was considerable discussion on the �resolution`granting a non-exclusive
franchise to Finer Living, Inc. , and ''Exhibit.A" , Monthly Rates, Busines's and
Residential was amended to `read as follows: One`T. V. outlet, `and/or one F. M.
outlet. . . . . $5. 25. `
_ . � . , _ , _
MOTION: Made by Councilman Chatfield, seconded by Councilmari Denny that �-��
Resolution No. 3240 be adopted, a resolution of the City�Council of the City of
Redding granting to Finer Living,` Inc. , a California�C`orporation, a non=ex�lusive
franchise to use the public roads, streets arid highways`of the Cit}� of Redding for
the purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining a community antenna television
system under and pursuant to the terms and provisions of Chapter �r3. 1 of the
Redding City Co3e, 1959,�as amended. � ` " �
_ Voting was as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen -,Chatfield, Deriny, Kriegsman, Moty and Martin '
Noes: Councilmen - None ` � � `
Absent: Councilmen - None � � � � �
Resolution No, 3240 on file in the office of the City Clerk,
� � _ _. � _ _ _ � _- � �
REPORT - Golden Eagle Hotel Site � � � � � �
, ., _ Gity, Attorney:Murphy advised the owners of the Golden Eagle Hotel site had orally
accepted the conditions offered by the`City Council on February.l7th. ` �-5�
RE REQUESTS TO USE BUILDINGS - 1500 Block Calif. St.
57 -
Report of Councilman Moty deferred pending consultation with Lt. Potts,
Commanding Officer of the Salvation Army, who is out of town this week.
� , � � , , .. � . . . .: .. � _
; -MOTION: Made.by Councilman Denn,y,second�ed.by Councilman Moty.th'e meet-
ing be adjourned until 7:30 P. M. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes.. : .
GREATER ENTERPRISE ANNEXATION PROTEST HEARING
The hour of 7:30 P. M. having arrived, Ivlayor Martin opened the protest
hearing in accordance with Resolution No. 3228, a resolution of the City
Council of the City of Redding declaring its intention to call a special annexation
election and fixing a time and place for protest by property owners.
Affidavit of Publication Resolution No. 3228 on file in the
office of the City Clerk
City Attorney Murphy briefed council on this Hearing, required by Section
35117 of the Government Code; he stated the purpose of the hearing is basically
to receive written protests from the owners of property within the territory to
be annexed. That if any protests are received, the meeting must be recessed
for a period of not les�s than ten days and supplemental protests may be filed �
within such period and until the hour set for reconvening the hearing.
If the protest hearing�is recessed, after it is reconvened and the protest hearing
is finally closed, the City Council must declare by resolution within thirty days
� after the closing of the hearing whether or not a majority protest has been
�� �� made. {Government Code Section 3512.1. 1).
Written protests may be either by petition or by individual letter, but in any
event must state the name of the owner of the property protesting, and the
street address or other description of the property sufficient to identify it on
the last equalized assessment roll. ` ` ` � �
The precise �questions to be determi`ned are, whether or not the owners of one-
half of the value of the territory proposed to be annexed protest annexation.
The value for �protest purposes shall be that shown on the last`equalized assess-
ment roll. Value of the territory.means the value of the land, exclusive of
improvements thereon. � �
Where the land is publicly �owried, or exempt from taxation, its value for protest
purposes shall be determined by the County Assessor in the same amount as he
would assess said property if it were not exempt from taxation. The duty falls
upon the protestant to submit the v alue_ of protesting property which is exempt
from taxation or is publ'icly owne�l. (Government Code Section 35121). If
privately owned property arid publicly owned property are included in the area
to be annexed, further proceedings :shall not be taken ,i�f:" protest is' made by
public and private owrier�s of one=half of the value of the territory. If one-half
of the value of the territory protests, no further proceedirigs for 'the' �.�ne�ation
of any of the same territory to the City. shall be taken for one year after the date
of.the resolution determining the px�otest. If less than one-half of the value of
the territory protests, the legislative body, �,fter making such: determination by
resolution,� may,proceed without delay�to call a special eTection�and s.ubmit to
the electors residing in the territory to be �.nnexed the annexation`question.
Such election shall be h.eld not sooner than 54 days arid n'ot later than Z5 days
after the closing of the protest hearing. (Government Code Section 35122)..
• <' � -
Mr. T. A., Pierson, a member of the firm of Randall Presleigh, and represent-
ing some of the protestants to annexation, asked council how iong a time would
they have to obtain further signatures, the minimum of ten days or a little more
equitable consideration. '
City Attorney.Murphy stateci he Yiad suggested Friday,.March� 6th or Monday,
� March 9th as tentative dates. That certain considerations had to be given to
�.
members of the City staff who prepare the`bud'get for the coming fiscal year;
if Enterprise annexation is successful, it woizld make many changes �in the tentative
budget that must be adopted before June 30th. � �
58
Furthe�r, if the ele.ction was delayed too long in point of time, it would bring
it clo.se to school vacation, an unsatisfactory time for both proponents and
opponents to the anxiexation, as there is al�ays a lighter vote during vacation
periods. �
Councilman Kriegsman stated the entir,e .procedure has been outlined to both
the proponents and.the opponents of annexation, this was not a last minute
proposition. That council should proceed with dispatch to find out whether
there will be an electior� or not.- We� would stay within-the limits of the law,
but this should be adequate. And another reason to be consid'ered along with
the City Attorney=s was the matter of commission appaintments. A few of
these were being held up pending outcome of the election, that representatives
of this area might be given the opportunity to serve on these commissions.
Mr. .Pierson stated it was his feeling that council was being a little selfish, a
little bit narrow minded. The question; was, is this more imp�rtant to Redding,
or to the people of Enterprise. Council was thinking this as being more important
to Redding, he though�t it was more important to the people of Enterprise. It was
his opinion the people of Enterprise should be given adequate opportunity to weigh
the facts and make up their minds. Giving them the bare minimum of time was
a bit unfair. The people of Enterprise should be given sufficient time to dis-
seminate the facts and information and have adequate time to make up their
minds. Asked by Mayor Martin what did he plea, he stated he would like a. ��
minimum of two weeks.
Mr. Jack Alward, 2982 Kenco Avenue, said in all fairness, time may play against
the opponents rather than for them. He was under the belief they too had this
ten days to approach the opponents to the annexation to have them remove their
names from the protest petitions.
City Attorney Murphy stated he was not prepared to make a statement at this time
on this question; he would check the code further and get in touch with the League
of California Citiesl counsel.
Mr. Elmer Junkans stated he was opposed to the annexation; he owned property
bnth in and outside of the City, but had moved to get out of the City. That he had
no idea of the boundaries of this annexation, but he and many had thought the
boundaries were the same as the Enterprise Public Utility District. For this
reason he would like more time to recirculate petitions.
Mrs. Adams stated the petitions may be signed by property owners only; that
registered voters twenty-one years or over and renters would be voting at the
election. Why rush. to get Enterprise annexed? They definitely needed more
time.
Mr. E. E. Lorr stated he was opposed to the annexation; it was reasonable to
allow enough time to obtain additional signatures as the election might not be
necessary and money could be saved.
Councilman Chatfield emphasized the councilmen are for annexation only if the
majority of people are for annexation; the attorney for the opponents had asked
for time until March 9th; that he, too, would like to be sure this will be a worth
while election, and he personally saw no objection to Monday, March 9th.
Councilmen Denny and Kriegsman concurred with Mr, Chatfield.
Mr. Harry Parsons stated he was Vice President of a corporation that owns
quite a bit of property in the Enterprise area. He asked if he was right in the
following: That the people who voted for annexation were the registered voters,
those opposing annexation who were property owners signed petitions. The
City Attorney stated this is correct; if the property owner does not sign a
petition opposing annexation, it is taken as approval for the annexation. That
silence means there is no opposition.
59
The City Clerk,advised.fifteen petitions had been filed wi.th her .offic;e, with
' over five hundred signatures. . That this_was less�than the one-half.of the
� territory proposed to be annexed, however .chec�ing. of the petitions,had just
��'� begun. .
MOTION: Made by Councilman Moty, seconded by_ Councilman Chatfield this
meeting be recessed until Z:3�0 P. M. Monday, March 9th. _
Voting was as follows: . _ _ .
�yes: Councilmen,- Chatfield, Denny, Kriegsman, IVloty.and Martin
Noes: Councilmen - None . _ .
Absent: Couxlcilmen:- None _ , ,. , . ' _, ,
_ . � , .
APPROVED:
�r " �"� ^_,
� � ���; _ � � . ! ' �1`ii
� _ . � _ �}�
, _ /2v��C:-�d-��''. �f' �. . �
. , . _ _ _ /: _. Mayor . �� -'
, _ �.�_
�,ttes_t: , .
,�
!` 2�-;C-�-�� �-�/� ��--- , _ _
Cit Clerk
� � � � ,
�
, . . . . . � _ _ ,
� .
_ . � �
. . � _ � . � .
.. �