02/23/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilman williams asked when the balance of the assessment would be due if it was deferred. Mr. Teitzel read from the deferment ordinance: Deferred amount will be- come due when the land's use becomes other than owner-occupied single-family, a building permit is issued for a new structure, the property is rezoned to a more ~ intensive use, the property is conveyed to another person, or at the end of 20 years. ~ He added that the amount due now ($112.76) could be Bancrofted and possibly might be eligible for hardship deferment, considering Mrs. Burns is 80 years old and on 1 imi ted income. Ms. Nock commented that they still would be paying the same amount of assessment as the adjacent property on which apartments were bringing in considerably more income, unless the property was sold. Mr. Teitzel noted the ordinance provided for deferment until the property was "conveyed" to another person, so that it was unclear "d1ether the deferred amount would be due when title passed to Ms. Nock as a beneficiary. Mr. Williams explained to Ms. Nock that the deferred amount, n6t being due until the property was sold, would be paid by the buyer. If the deferment was terminated on ' simple change of ownership, without being sold, and if it was felt that should not apply, then he thought perhaps the ordinance should be changed. Mrs. Seal noted the effort, especially,-in-the f'lestUniversity neighborhood, to preserve the character of the area by keeping as many single-family residences as possible. For that reason, she thought it appropriate to investigate a change in the ordinance to provide for deferment to continue on inherited property if the use did not change from single family. It was understood Mr. Tetizel would explore such a change and have a report brought back for consideration of the Council. In answer to Ms. Nock, Mr. Teitzel said that semiannual payment of interest would avoid a larger payment at the end of the deferral period. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed, except that on the Burns property, 559 East 14th Avenue, the amount of assessment over and above the amount that would be assessed for R-l zoning would be deferred. e 3. C.B.l007 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Souza Park Subdivision; and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of a line extended south 660 feet from the southeast corner of Souza Park, thence west '640 feet to Danebo Street (75-18) No written protests and no requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. 4. C.B.100B - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on 2nd Avenue from 85 feet west of Monroe Street to 250 feet west of Adams Street (75-35) Request to be heard was received from Robert Suess, owner of property being assessed. His protest was to the effect that a tee was not requested at Station 1+00, cost of the assessment was too high, and the property was served by an existing sewer line which was condemned by the city. Staff report noted that Mr. Suess was noti- fied of the estimated cost of the sewer prior to award of contract, and that he had petitioned for the improvement. Mr. Suess did not appear. Bert Teitzel, city engineer, explained that the existing sewer line was not adequate to serve the construction planned by Mr. Suess, hence the petition for a new line. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. 5. C.B.l009 - Levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer on Robin Street from Taney Street to 400 feet east of Taney Street (75-38) No kTitten protests and no requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. e 2/23/76 - 12 to...