OCR Text |
Show Sidewalk dispute comes back to haunt council By GARY R. BLODGETT Editor BOUNTIFUL A dispute over joining a sidewalk improvement district in 1974 came back to "haunt" Bountiful City Council last Wednesday night. But the current council, which was not in office at the time, agreed that nothing could be done now to "rectify any possible wrongdoings" wrong-doings" of 12 years ago. Laural Van Orman told the council that she should be reimbursed for money she spent on the sidewalk project in front of her home because be-cause "she opposed the project but was forced to pay anyway." She noted that several other "neighbors" in the 500 South project also protested and they did not have to join the district - but neither was the sidewalk placed along the frontage of their property. Although the mayor and council members were not serving at that time, City Attorney Layne B. Forbes and City Engineer Jack Balling Ball-ing were in staff positions and they offered the following explanation: The special improvement project extended east on 500 South from 200 West to 1 100 East, but most of the properties in question were located between 800 East and Davis Blvd. Attorney Forbes said he was very much a part of that "decision-making" process 12 years ago and explained that some properties, were left out of the district because there was a serious question about right of ownership to property being used for the sidewalk. "Deeds to those properties in question were less than clear and it was evident from the beginning that a long court battle would be needed to clear the air," said Atty. Forbes, "We are limited in the amount of time we had to complete the (special improvement) project and were limited in funds to battle anyone opposing the project. "The city was served with an injunction and it was fruitless to spend the time and money to fight the case at that time, so we simply left them out of the district." The injunction, he noted, stated that the property owners in question owned land "to the edge of the street" and that to install a sidewalk the city would have to purchase the property. Atty. Forbes explained that now the city is replacing the sidewalk that was installed 12 years ago, most of the property owners without sidewalks - whether they be original or new landowners want the improvement and there appears to be no problems. Mrs. Van Orman stressed that her main ob- , jective Was that she didn't want the sidewalk ' either, but she was forced to participate despite-' being a widow with a large family to support. |