Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> I <br /> I AJll?EN Uij.LS CI.TY COUNCIL - MAY 8. 1994 , <br /> ~ , <br /> Mr. Schacht did not believe the "benefiting" properties should pay so much. <br /> I Mr. Schacht inquired if the embankment on his property would be supported during the construction <br /> of the street. Mr. Stonehouse indicated this would be reviewed, the reconstructed street would <br /> I basically be within the limits of the existing street. <br /> Mr. DOD Tix, 1770 West COUDty Road F, inquired as to the walkway, indicating it was his <br /> I understanding that it would be removed, since that is the desire of the residents. Mr. Stonehouse <br /> indicated, as requested by the City Council, this issue was reviewed and the street was adjusted two <br /> feet to the north with available space for a six foot walkway and a four foot boulevard. <br /> I Mr. Tix expressed concern that the residents were paying for a wider, heavier and more expensive <br /> I road, for the benefit of the bus company. <br /> Mr. Tix indicated the difficulty the residents are having is with the County who did not assess for <br /> I improvements, and now the residents are being assessed quite excessively. <br /> Mayor Probst indicated he believed there is a misconception, that the residents are paying a <br /> I. premium, but the assessment is not based on the actual cost of the improvements, but it is based on <br /> a typical city street. <br /> I Craig WilSOD, 1677 COUDty Road F, expressed concern regarding the walkway. He indicated a <br /> petition had been forwarded to the City Council regarding the desires of the residents for the <br /> elimination of the walkway. <br /> I Mr. Wilson believed the assessment is too high and felt other revenue sources should be <br /> investigated. <br /> I . <br /> Mr. Wilson indicated the City should allow for some type of extension regarding the assessment, as <br /> I the notices of the assessment amounts were just received four days ago and two of those days were <br /> during the weekend. Also he feels the payment period is unreasonable, as not many residents would <br /> have the money by June. <br /> I Larry Parker. 1814 West COUDty Road F, supported all the previous comments from the residents. <br /> He believed the design of the road was unrealistic. <br /> I Huy Pham. 1761 COUDty Road F, supported the comments of the previous residents. He indicated <br /> his property was one of the odd shaped lots. <br /> I Mr. Pham indicated two-thirds of his lot is wetland, and is undevelopable, but it is included in the <br /> .. assessment. He noted since his lot is irregular the assessment attributed to his property is <br /> I <br />