My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-24-95 Council Special Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
10-24-95 Council Special Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 4:38:14 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:57:13 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.
/
35
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
MINUTE5 <br />CITY WUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 24, 1995 <br />$41.27 PER FRONT FOOT BASED ON THE ADDITION OF THE <br />RAILROAD PROPERTY IN THE ASSESSMENT ROLL <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Morelan. <br />Ayes (5) Scalze, Morelan, Fahey, LaValle, Pedersen. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />Mr. Morelan introduced the following resolution and <br />moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 95-10-240 - ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL <br />FOR IMPROVEMENT 93-11, JACKSON/OLD COUNTY ROAD <br />C/LAKESHORE, AS AMENDED <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Pedersen. <br />Ayes (5) Morelan, Pedersen, Fahey, LaValle, Scalze. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />Fahey pointed out that representatives from the City <br />Engineer's office are in the conference room next door. <br />Property owners are invited to discuss their concerns <br />about the project with these representatives so the <br />City can be sure that all concerns are addressed. <br />At this point in the meeting, 7:45 P.M., Council took a <br />short recess. The meeting was reconvened at 7:55 P.M. <br />Morelan noted that the majority of objections dealt <br />with the amount of assessment. <br />Fahey noted that James and Sandy Weidt objected to the <br />fact that they are being assessed for 75 feet of <br />frontage when, in fact, they have 44 feet. <br />Scalze asked if there was a provision in the policy for <br />twin homes. <br />The City Administrator noted that the a <br />provides for a minimum assessment of 75 <br />takes into consideration that each lot, <br />size, if provided access to the street. <br />cul-de-sacs or irregularly-shaped lots, <br />lot formula would be applied. <br />ssessment policy <br />feet which <br />regardless of <br />For lots on <br />the odd-shaped <br />Scalze stated that it seems the policy is fair in that <br />every homeowner with access would pay a minimum of 75 <br />feet. <br />Morelan noted that the policy would be consistent <br />looking at assessable amount. The Weidt's have the <br />smallest lot along the improvement, and are paying the <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.