|
<br />"~-
<br />
<br />"e
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />In further response to Councilmiln Bradley, Mr. (;ilmcln explained the slop::
<br />of the land precluded gravi tlj ElO\v to the Spring LJoulcv.:ncl ,linc 1'1'0/1/ proper-
<br />ties on the 10\ver sirie of tl1t:: street so it was quest,ioll<JiJle LllOSC' properties
<br />wou1d have been assess rl Mr. naycr :';(1.'; dbI..: to IHlild .';0 uS Co t:iJ;e advdntage
<br />of the yrav,ity floh'. Mr. Gilman added that if those [Jropertics hld bL'Cll
<br />assessed, there Ivas the probah,i.ljt~1 of jeopc1rdizjnq tile con:';trllclion of a
<br />proper system, preventing ~;clpS, and p1ac,ing a burden on other properties.
<br />
<br />Mr. Mayer sai d the ci ty engintyers thoU(;ilt tile system as '1J/J.i 1 t WilS t:l1e most
<br />economical mel:hod or pTovidinq selver:; 1:0 that ;)tl~'l. Ik said he Ikld pr0:;ultcd
<br />a rcdcsiCfll IviJicil '!V()(Jldhave cost IlIuchless although he \"JS unahle to gai.n
<br />aC]t'C!cment from ull the properLy OIVJJers involved in order t:o have it constructed
<br />tha t Ivay, clnd tIle puhl ic \vorks di rocCoI' had accepted the engineers' desiYll as
<br />a more reasonil]Jle solution. Mr. 'l'cil,::.cl responded that the proposal presented
<br />by Mr. Mayp.r would have resuI terI ,in a Ilcav,icr SClver cost on SOI/lC 101:5 and
<br />the system as built Lvii.'> hcljeved by t:hL' pulJIic works departmcnt to bc more
<br />crjuitahle. lie "~;C1irI the city at:tornClj'S advice al: that t:imo Iv,),'; tlJi1t if all
<br />aLU~rniJtes hul 1)('1.'11 C'Xfl/Ol..:d c1nd the- fdliJ1;,c wOl-k.'; dC'jhlrLIlII.'Il/' fe,lt: I:his syst:cm
<br />df}Di<j1l would IJC'.';t St.'TVL' dll till' rnOjWrtLI'.';' iJl 0((1<'/" /u {'I',I/I<JI.' Ulat rJo,c;.i'jn
<br />there IvOll.!ll iJdvr: Co I)L' tot,11 dljrecl/leJlL IJl} owncrs of L.lll [Jl'o[JL'J'ties wldch
<br />would be assessed.
<br />
<br />Counc.i1man TJr.:Jclley expressed confusion sti 11 at the reason for assessing
<br />Mr. Mayer's property Ivhen it was served by the Spring IJoulevard line, and
<br />Mr. Teitzel further explained the recently completed Centeral Boulevard line
<br />along the southerly l.ine ot' fIIr. Mc1lJer's lot, point.ing out the specifics on
<br />iJ mc1jJ, iJnd not.ing that Uw property }w(i not bec'n iJsscssecl for service to
<br />SpriJlr; Boulevard. Mr. MdIJeT said it was c1 question of cost. lie Ivas never
<br />I:old if hI} postponed a.';SL'sslIIC'nt it Ivol1Jd amount to tllrCL' times as much,
<br />facts \vOl'C' not: '.;fJ<,'/ll."} Ollt C()/l/jJ]cto.ll/ ,,'i th r<."jard to tree ['(,'II/oval (lle 1'e-
<br />lu.';(.'rJl'o havI' trl.....'; (:111', I/e :;,Iid), and })(.' WcJS not: convinced tilo system IvcJS
<br />1.1". /110.';/. I:C{)/HJ//I;t:,rl 11/.11. c()I}ld 1)1.' IJr.'vi';'I]. Nr. '['ei/.zl.'l dl'(c'w/,,'d tllI~ slJstem's
<br />lJeill<j the /l/O!;t r.'COllo/l/ir:./.!, S,lIJiIlIJ l:iJr,' .111('1/1:11:0 .';1/.';(,1'111 fJ,'nfJ():;,'(1 (Ii() Jlot I:ako
<br />into account: JdditioJl']} co.';!.:" 14hich WOll.lrl lId VI.' ])(.'('/1 i/lCUTT'l.'d 1)// ;/I(fivirlll.dr,
<br />hdvin~l to run r1o\vn ca.';cl/lcnts, eLc.
<br />
<br />Recommendation: Unan.imous, t!J~t in v.iClv of the evidence presented -
<br />agrcementmade with the city in 1964 foregoing
<br />charges at time of connection to the Spring Boule-
<br />vard line - the levy should be assessed as proposed.
<br />
<br />Mr. Nayer continued his ArC]uments that he had no wril:tnn statements Ivith re-
<br />gard to what the sewer lVOI,.dd cost at time of installation, that 110 fc,lt ,it was
<br />a "make work" project for the c,i tl}, tha tit was for the benefit of llunter I s
<br />subc;1ivision, etc. lle submi, tted copy of the 1etter hart rcad earlier.
<br />
<br />In response to Councilman Bradley, Mr. 'I'eitzel explained that propert,ies
<br />within Hi() feet of a S(~I\'cr line ~rc roquired to make connectio/l within l8
<br />monl:}Js of its insta.Z.1ation, that Mr. Mayer's jJropnrtlj Iva,,, the only OJl(~ with
<br />qravity flOW to SJn-illlJ f!ou.lC'velrd, tlJrC.'e .JdrliUonal hOllse.'> are served to
<br />Sprint] lJoulevanl with {Jumping stat.ions, iJnd that IvhC'/l Uw (Jumping stations
<br />tvere put ,in ,i,t was poillted out to those property owners there would })c future
<br />assessment for serving their properties bl/ qravi ty f]ow.
<br />
<br />Discussion returned to the objections of Ms. Dutcl] rCYJrding
<br />property at 29tlJ and Central. She said she had 110 objection
<br />1:0 \vai ling for a dec:.ision wi th regard to her assessmen t by the
<br />en ti re Counci ,1 .
<br />
<br />\&Cl,
<br />
<br />4/14/75 - 37
<br />
|