My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-09-87 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
09-09-87 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 2:38:08 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:51:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />Sept. 9, 1987 <br />Street Fahey noted that to assess on a per unit basis would be unfair to <br />Improvement a single-fam ily homeowner with 75 feet of frontage if that homeowner <br />Policy was assessed the same as a property owner with 220 feet of frontage. <br />(Cont.) Fahey noted that the amount of the assessment for the condominium <br /> unit may be an advantage of living in multi-family housing. However, <br /> Fahey noted that there are disadvantages as well. <br />Scalze noted that the condominiums have to pay the whole bill if <br />improvements are needed for their internal street system. Scalze <br />felt it was an unfortunate situation and pointed out that the Demont <br />property is splitable. Scalze pointed out that there is no good <br />reason for putting multiple housing across the street from single- <br />family, however, there was nothing the City could do at this point. <br />fahey stated that the City must strive for consistency in its <br />assessment policies and the precedent is to assess according to <br />road frontage. <br />It was the concensus of the Council not to change the assessment <br />as levied for the Demont improvement. <br />Dupre Fahey reported that the next assessment for consideration by the <br />Supplemen- Council is the supplementary assessment for the Norm Dupre property <br />tary for $500 for the installation of a silting fence. <br />Assessment <br /> TomHorwath, City 4Jeed Inspector, reported that he was instructed by <br />Agenda the City Clerk to have a silting fence put up on the Dupre property <br />Item No. 8 due to erosion problems from the Dupre property onto the Costa property. <br /> Horwath also reported that he ordered some noxious weeds cut on the <br /> Dupre property. The bill sent to Mr. ~upre by the contractor was <br /> in the amount of $500, however, the bill was not itemized and only <br /> refers to erection of the silting fence. Horwath reported that he <br /> sent three letters to Mr. Dupre requesting that the weeds be cut <br /> before he hired a contractor to do the work. <br /> The City Engineer reported that he inspected the fence and it appears <br /> to be a silting fence to him. <br /> Fahey stated that the question is whether or not the fence was <br /> necessary to keep erosion off the Costa property. <br /> The City Engineer stated that he inspected the property and could <br /> see no erosion from the Dupre property onto the Costa driveway. <br /> Fahey reported that Mr. Dupre claims that the weeds which were cut <br /> were not weeds, but alfalpha. <br /> The Weed Inspector disagreed and reported that the weeds were noxious <br /> weeds. <br />Page -7- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.