04/12/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M. Assessment Panel Report - April 5 Present: Council members Murray and Bradley; City Engineer Bert Teitze1 - 1. C.B. 1078 - levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer - C~nter Way from Martin Street to 650' South of Martin Street (75-29) No written protests or requests to be heard were received. Comm 4/7/76 Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. Approve 2,- C.B. 1079 - levying assessments for --all-~Y pav-ing between 13th Avenu;-a~d 14th Avenue fromPattersonStreet't6Hi1yardStreet(75~39) , . '. .,'. No writ~en protests or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. Comm 4/7/76 Approve 3. C.B. 1080 - levying assessments for alley paving between 6th Avenue and 7th Avenue from Washin ton Street tolawrence Street 75-40 No wrltten ,protests or requests to be heard were recelve . Recommendation: levy assessments as proposed. Comm 4/7/76 Approve 4. C.B. 1081 - levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve the Skyline loop Annexation area generally bounded by 43rd Avenue on the North, Dillard Road on the South and West, and East of Skyline loop on the East Phase I 75~41 .., Ir tten protests were received from Harold Primrose an Emmade Prlmrose 0 4 ld Dillard Road and Robert Horowitz and Mrs. R. A. Horowitz of 100 Barber Drive. Requests~ to be heard were received from Carl Richart 4873 Old Dillard Rd., Gladys Kokotan of 4839 Old Dillard Rd.. and Eugene Moyer of 4895 Old Dillard Rd. Messrs Richart and Moyer did not appear. Mr. Teitzel explained that the project came about by the annexation of the Skyline loop area as a health hazard, therefore. the property owners were forced into the City without their consent. This sewer project came about by virtue of the City Council initiating an improvement ordinance on April 14, 1976. Comments from property owners have generally been on the City's assessment policy. Mrs. G,ladys Kokotan stated that her major concern was that she could not understand the statement she had received. She stated it is not an itemized statement, and she does not know what she is paying for. Also, she stated that she has two lots and only has a sewer hook up on one lot. Mr. Teitzel explained that Tax lot 3900 was assessed for the lateral, 1/2~ levy and one service hook up; Tax lot 3800 was assessed for the lateral and 1/2~ levy. No service was left for lot 3800, and therefore, she was not charged for service hook up for Lot 3800. Councilman Murray stated that Mr. Teitzel could explain the statement to Mrs. Kokotan after the meeting.____ ______ , Mrs. Kokotan question~d.whY the property across the ~treet could ~Qt be deve~oped and therefore share in the expense of this sewer proJect. Mr. Teltzel explalned ~.'._ that the portion across the street is in the County and he was unsure of ~ow much .., of it could be served. but believed a portion of it could be served by thlS sewer. Mr. Teitzel stated that one of two things could have been done in a situation like this, (1) Not include the property in the assessment. then when 1~1 4/12/76 - 24