Resolution No. 4488 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"~ ;/'" J " ;J " Oral Testimony , Public hearing for the formation of the proposed local improvement district May 15,1996 - 6 p.m. Mary H.Thompson 84 Green Lane The letter from the Sailada's and myself that is attached as Exhibit "H" in this memorandum contains our request to be exempted from all assessments relative to this local improvement district. We have clearly identified the city policies and codes that support this request. " " "" My testimony tonight is about actions that happened subsequent to our written report. In support of this testimony I have made a copy of my log and it is attached to the comments I am now making. These actions I feel are at the heart of the problem that exists between the "city" and its "citizens." That of trust and credibility. First I wish to say that I believe fervently in our system of government and in the importance of each citizen understanding and obeying its laws. I write my comments out in order to be accurate and to show respect for the process of the implementation of these laws. ' . It is to honor this process and those entrusted with it that I have spent so much time "trying to get the information needed to determine if I was being just in asking for this exemption against my property. It is to honor this process that I have spent so much time trying to make my presentation in a professional manner. The incident that occurred that bothers me greatly is the information I was given about the exemption of the gasoline station (tax lot 2100). In my written testimony on page 3 under the title Exemptions already granted I recount the information given to me by Sue Malone regarding the determination by "Tom F." on April 1 0 that taxlot 2100 be marked non- benefited because it was connected to the same sewer that runs along the back of our property and that we are connected to. I felt that this information corroborated my interpretation of the code and completed my report. I was given this information on Monday around 4:15 p.m. Sue knew I viewed this exemption as validating our request. " ' Tuesday morning I spoke again to Sue and referred to this information as being added to my report. Sue told me that this information was discussed and it was felt that a mistake had been made. The gasoline station will now be assessed and that the person making the determination - Tom F. - didn't even remember why he designated it as non- benefited. Because I still believed in my interpretation of the codes (s~e page 2 of my written report) I submitted itas written and tried even harder to get a definition of "Specifically Benefited." I still have not been given this information.