Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />August 26, 1987 <br />LaCasse Mrs. Scalze introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />Assessment <br />(Cont.) RESOLUTION N0. 87-8-410 - APPROVING AND <br />ADOPTING THE ASSFSSMENT ROLL fOR TERMINATION <br />OF SENIOR CITIZEN DEFERRED ASSESSMENT AS <br />AMENDED PARCEL ~10. 07-39-33-32-0040 <br />(53-55000-411-03) <br />IMPROVEMENT - IdTR 76-5 <br />AUD 1579 <br />INTEREST - 8% <br />INSTALLMENTS - 4 YEARS <br />AMOUNT - $1,982.67 <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Fahey. <br />Ayes (4) Scalze, Fahey, Blesener, Collova. <br />Nays (0). <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 18, Page 436. <br />Assessment Fahey opened the assessment hearing to consider the assessment roll <br />Hearing for the Allen Avenue improvement. <br />Allen Flvenue <br />Assessment Fahey asked if there was anyone present wishing to comment on this <br />Roll improvement. <br />Agenda P~r. Eugene Hammer, 2995 Greenbrier, reported that there is work <br />Item No. 20 on the boulevards that needs to be completed and sod that has <br />not been replaced. Hammer also requested that a stop sign be <br />installed at the intersection of Greenbrier and Allen as there <br />are speeding problems in the area. <br />Collova suggested that the Public Works Superintendent put up a <br />stop sign. <br />Fahey reported that the City Engineer will look into the concerns <br />raised by Mr. Hammer. <br />The City Clerk pointed out that P1r. Don Tarnowski, 3003 Greenbrier, <br />has requested that his assessments be deferred. The Clerk pointed <br />out that the only two lots effected by the improvement are the <br />Hammer and Tarnowski lots which are proposed to be assessed $6,204.70 <br />each. <br />Hammer asked if he could get a deferment on his assessments until <br />he sold his lot. <br />Fahey pointed out that <br />the Hammer assessments <br />Also, a senior citizen <br />since the lot has been <br />property and senior ci <br />property. <br />there would be no basis for a deferment for <br />as the property has already been divided. <br />deferment would not apply in this instance <br />divided, it is considered an investment <br />tizen deferments only apply to homestead <br />Page -26- <br />