Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 24, 1995 <br />Charles Nagle, 145 Lake Street, said that Mrs. <br />McDonough was correct. The City ordered the project, <br />and then changed the assessment policy after the fact. <br />Mrs. McDonough is a victim of that change. <br />The City Administrator reported that the assessment <br />policy was changed this year. <br />Morelan stated that the City tried to fine-tune the <br />policy which obviously did not work to McDonough's <br />benefit. Morelan agreed that under the old policy the <br />McDonough property would have been assessed for 75 feet <br />of frontage, and is now being assessed for 125. <br />Scalze pointed out that under the old policy the <br />property would have been assessed for 100% of the cost <br />of curb and gutter. The new policy assessed for 850 of <br />this cost. <br />Nagle reported that in 1993 the McDonough's petitioned <br />for the improvement of Lake Street. They may not have <br />signed that petition had they known the formula would <br />be changed for assessing their property. <br />Mr. McDonough pointed out that the property owners had <br />just wanted the street ground and overlaid. <br />LaValle noted that the cost of an overlay was estimated <br />at $35 per front foot. The reconstruction of Lake <br />Street with curb and gutter is being assessed at $35.78 <br />per front foot. <br />Mr. McDonough pointed out that a good piece of curbing <br />extends along his neighbor's property which is on <br />Lakeshore. McDonough asked if that property owner is <br />being assessed. <br />The Administrator replied that the plan is to assess <br />that footage when Lakeshore is improved. <br />Nagle stated that the discussion from the Lake Street <br />people is not about the cost of the project, but rather <br />the process. Nagle stated that he would like to <br />discuss this painful process and how we might improve <br />it. <br />Nagle began with the history. First, a couple of <br />improvement hearings were held at which residents <br />objected to the projects. At the first improvement <br />hearing, the City Council declined to proceed. The <br />Council then tried again, and again the property owners <br />21 <br />