07/28/75 Board of Public Works Minutes

Home Browse Search

M REGULAR MEETING JULY 28, 1975 TITLE SHEET APPROVED SEWERS ON DR. ROBERT ALLEN PROPERTY The title sheet approving the plans for sewers on the Dr. Robert Allen property, west of Miami Street, just opposite the Scottsdale Mall entrance, was submitted to the Board. Upon motion made, seconded and carried, the title sheet approving the plans was approved. TITLE SHEET APPROVED AND BID ADVERTISING APPROVED ELWOOD SIDEWALKS The title sheet approving the plans for the Elwood Avenue sidewalks to be constructed at various locations on Elwood Avenue from Olive to Portage, under Barrett Law, was submitted to the Board. Upon motion made, seconded and carried, the title sheet approving the plans was approved. Mr. Wells recommended that construction bids for the project be advertised. Upon motion made,seconded and carried, the Board directed that the Clerk advertise for bids on August 1 and 8, with sealed bids to be received on August 18, 1975. REQUEST FOR TENT SERVICES DENIED A request from Elder W. 0. Coates to conduct tent services August 3 through 17 at 1017 Carroll Street and to use a city -owned lot at 1015 Carroll Street for parking was referred to the Legal Department for review. The following recommendation was received: "To: Board of Public Works From: Kathleen E. Cekanski Re: Request for Tent Revival I have reviewed the request of Emmanuel Church of Deliverance owned lots while owners attend August 3 through 17. by Elder W. 0. Coates Elder W. 0. Coates of the to park automobiles on city - the Church Tent Revival In referring tp attached memorandums sent by City Attorney James A. Roemer to the Board of Public Works on August 6, 1973 and June 24, 1974, there are two reasons for this denial. First, this request should be denied for constitutional reasons. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids the use of public property to further a religion and demands complete neutrality of the state. The lot at 1017 Carroll Street is presently being deeded to the City, while the lot at 1015 Carroll Street is city -owned. Thus, since the Church would be using the property for a non -secular purpose, this would violate the neutrality mandate of the First Amendment. A second reason dictating denial is the Fourteenth Amendment which requires equal protection of the law. If the City allowed one group to use the property it would be required to allow all similarly situated groups the same privilege. Even without the First Amendment problems, administration of this type of policy would be extremely difficult to manage and thus it would be impractical for the City to adopt that type of policy. For the above reasons, I recommend that the request be respectfully denied. S/ Kathleen E. Cekanski Deputy City Attorney 1