My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PCAgenda_91Jun24
FalconHeights
>
Committees and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
199x
>
1991
>
PCAgenda_91Jun24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/21/2009 3:25:59 PM
Creation date
7/7/2009 1:56:33 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
. . <br />MINUTES <br />MAY 22, 1991 <br />PAGE 4 <br />end of ten years. <br />Gedde recommended that if principal and interest are to be <br />handled on a case-by-case basis special criteria should be <br />included as to when the option to defer interest is to be <br />considered. Council discussed the matter and concluded that <br />persons with 75 percent or less of the income guidelines for <br />principal only deferral would be qualified, and that the action <br />to be taken is to amend the assessment policy to address the <br />option for interest deferral. <br />Baldwin restated the motion to read that the City's present <br />assessment policy be amended to allow for a negotiated deferment <br />of principal and interest if the household income is 75 percent <br />or less of the county's deferral guidelines for principal only. <br />(Explanation - When assessment is finally paid, there will be an <br />additional cost to ensure that the city recoups the full <br />amount.) Motion carried unanimously. _, <br />DENIAL OF REQUEST TO DROP INTEREST CHARGE ON STREET ASSESSMENT, <br />AVELYN HOOKER, 1756 ST. MARY'S <br />Ms. Hooker explained that she was aware of the street <br />improvement and upcoming assessment but did not receive the <br />hearing notice and felt it was unfair to charge interest from <br />the time of adoption of the assessment and the date she became <br />aware of the assessment. <br />Gedde explained assessment regulations are stipulated by State <br />Statute 429 and the City may not deviate from that statute. He <br />noted that the hearing notices were mailed, and the City is not <br />responsible for undelivered mail. Based on this information, <br />Council denied Ms. Hooker's request, after which Baldwin <br />suggested that she implement a tracer on the letter through the <br />postal service. <br />1990 CITY FINANCIAL REPORT PRESENTED AND APPROVED. <br />David Heinkemp representing the City's auditing firm, Kern, <br />DeWenter, Viere Ltd., made a brief presentation of the audit <br />report and indicated the City is in sound financial condition. <br />The report was accepted and approved by Council. <br />TREE PLANTING GUIDELINES APPROVED <br />Council briefly discussed and approved the planting guidelines <br />as presented. <br />UPDATE ON COMMUNITY PARK LANDSCAPING <br />• <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.