05/20/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

:ouncil members commented that legal procedures ~ere'followed in insta~lation of " ;the sewer and notice of assessment and that in view of' the agreement w~th regard 10 paying for the 24" equivalent there was no ot;her course but to levy the assessments; . . In answer to Mr. Nelson's inquiry about presenting his argument to the Council, / lit was explained that this meeting constituted public hear~ng on the assessments/ but that the COllncil had the option to reopen it if new ev~dence was prese.nted. / , /" Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. ----' "d F _..~_.. '. r.:- " 4. C.B.544 - Levying assessments for paving," sanitary and storm sewers within sa~ . Paul's Park Subdivision; Satre Street from Western Drive to 150 feet ' south of Bailey Lane; Western Drive from 250 feet west of Satre Street to 250 feet east of Waverly Street; and sanitary and storm sewers in area between 160 feet south of Western Drive and 150 feet south of Bailey Lane from 150 feet west of Satre Street to 160 feet east of Waverly Street (if extended) (73-38) , No written protests were received. No one was present Objecting to the assessments. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. . '5. C.B.545 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Desoto r Lake Subdivision; and paving Cody Avenue from Golden Gardens to 750 feet west (73-40) City Engineer explained that the entire project was inside the subdivision except Cody Avenue, an undeveloped street on which paving was required for access to the s~bdivision. Notices were sent to' owners of properties abutting Coqy at time of b~d award. Howev~r, property belonging to Newmans, who asked to be heard on the assessment, was.parb.of ~ minor ~ubdivision which was not listed on the County ~ecords from wh~ch c~ty ~nformat~on was taken in June 1973. Notice of public hear- ~ng, therefore, was mailed to the prior owner. . Councilman Murray read letter of protest signed. by Bill and Roberta Newman, 2l9~ Dew~~ s~reet, and Raymond, Herman, and Claudine Dennis, 2188 North Danebo. The~r obJect~ons were that i(l) no notice 'was posted, (2) they were not advised the work was to be done, (3) they received no notice of estimated assessment. T~e~ ~lso felt the assessment for work on Cody Avenue should be borne by the sub- d~ V~S~On. ' Mr. and Mrs. Newman said they had lived on the property since 1969. Also, that other people living on that street had not received notice of assessment. (Note: Finance Department reported no return of receipt for certified mailing of assess- ments to Elton and Linda Turner, 2135 West 19th Place, and Everett and R. Brackett, 901 Grant Street, listed as owners of property on Cody Avenue. Neither was receipt returned from Sig and Kay Moe, 3698 Franklin Boulevard, althqugh it was reported they had received the notices of assessment.) I \ r \ \ \ I \ \ . Mr. Newman inquired whether Cody Avenue had to be improved and was informed that in order to gain access to lots in the subdivision the street had to be pay~d. However, the city under Charter provisions cannot assess the cost of such improve- ment .to other than properties abut;ting the improvement; so the subdivision wowld pay for its half of the street and properties abutting the other, side would pay the other half. I At Councilman Murray's request Mr. Teitzel explained the city's legal responsibilitieS. with regard to notification of property owners. He said that in addition to adver- tising improvements in the local paper, a legal requirement, the city as a mat;ter of policy an1 courtesy sent notices of public hearing to property owners at time of contract award. The only means available are use of County records - recorder's ~ffice, not the tax rolls. Some of' those records were not up to date and accounted for failure of notices to reach some of the property owners on Cody Avenue. Generally, any assessments sent to a previous owner are brought to the city's attention and redirected to, the current owner. ~. Councilman Murray said it could be assumed that even if the ~ssessment was post- poned and the notice procedure gone through again, decision t;o make the aSSeSS- ment would still be the same. ,Don Hatfield, 2189 Dewey Street, an interested o~looker but not party to the assessment, commented, on the la'ck of information given property owners. He was a newcomer to that area and said he would not like to see such a project commence without knowing about it or having some control or choice_in the matter. Hefelt the project should have been posted in the area. 'In response to Mr~ Teitzel's explanation that Charter requirements provide for posting or advertising in a local paper, Mr. Hatfield suggested a Charter change to provide for better lnotification of intended improvements to those who would be paying the assessment. '~.. .' ' ,. \~ 5/20/74 - 21 ~