Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I. <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />.- <br />I <br />. <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I- <br />I <br /> <br />,ARDEN lllLLS CITY CO~CIL - JUNE 12. 1995 <br /> <br />q <br /> <br />Mr. Filla noted the City Council will need the specific addresses and names of the filed appeals. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst requested a recess at 9:50 p.m. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst reconvened the meeting at 10:05 p.m. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst inquired if all the appeals fall into an amount category. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst indicated the assessment rate should be established first, before the appeals are <br />accepted or denied. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone inquired if the amounts are accurate, or if there is any evidence that changes <br />should be made to the commercial or tax exempt rates. Mr. Stonehouse felt the amounts were <br />accurate. <br /> <br />MOTION: <br /> <br />Malone moved and Aplikowski seconded a motion adopting Resolution 95-46, <br />Establishing the Assessment Rate for Commercial of $44.00 per assessable front <br />foot; Tax Exempt of $66.75 per assessable front foot; and Residential of $31.95 per <br />assessable front foot. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski questioned if there was any way in which the Council could reduce the <br />rate of residential under $31. Councilmember Malone indicated after receiving bids for Stowe <br />Avenue, he felt the amount was in line. <br /> <br />MOTION: Aplikowski moved to amend the motion to show $31.00 per assessable front foot. <br />Motion failed for lack of a second. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst indicated for the benefit of the residents, he realized this was not the response they <br />desired, but the rate was based on bids received for Stowe Avenue. He indicated the Council has <br />struggled with this issue, but feels this is fair to the entire community. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski concurred with the Mayor and believed this is best for the community. <br /> <br />The motion carried unAnimously (4-0). <br /> <br />MOTION: <br /> <br />Malone moved and Aplikowski seconded a motion to deny the "Lack of Benefits" <br />objections of: <br />Paul & Bev Tavernier 1651 W. Co. Rd. F, <br />Gaius E. Harmon Jr. 1661 W. Co. Rd. F, <br />Paul S. Wallace 1779 W. Co. Rd. F, <br />HuyPham 1761 W. Co. Rd.F, <br />Mr. J. Dennis Zollinger 1700 W. Co. Rd. F, <br />Donald & Karen Ciske 1708 W. Co. Rd. F, <br />