My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 08-29-1983
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
CC 08-29-1983
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:12:16 PM
Creation date
11/10/2006 2:38:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
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
<br />seems reasonable - it's a judgment call. <br /> <br />MRS. CARLSON: Was it perhaps $39,000 out of $600,000 <br />because there was so much industrial money pouring into that <br />and so there wasn't the need or . <br /> <br />MAYOR WOODBURN: The $39,000 actually came out of a <br />compromise on a lawsuit. Otherwise it would have been 100%. <br />$600,000, paid for by benefitted properties. The past <br />practices on improvements like this - most often, at least - <br />have been assessed 100%. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MRS. CARLSON: Do you think there's anything unusual <br />about this proposal that would make it less than 100%? <br /> <br />MAYOR WOODBURN: Perhaps it would be hiding to say that <br />that determination is made at the assessment hearing. If <br />it was 50%, would you want it? Say the City picked up 50%. <br />Would that be worth it to you? <br /> <br />MRS. CARLSON: More so than 100%. <br /> <br />MAYOR WOODBURN: It's still bad, but only half as bad. <br /> <br />MRS. CARLSON: I think the assumption that you had that <br />everyone sitting out here doesn't want the proposal <br />(inaudible) is maybe carrying it further than what I per- <br />sonally would like. I wouldn't mind having water, but like <br />the gentleman in back said - not at that price. Talking <br />about $25.00 a foot versus $50.00 a foot - I'm thinking that <br />that might change some of our minds out here. So to assume <br />that we don't want it . . . <br /> <br />MAYOR WOODBURN: We're merely trying to judge the <br />depth of your feelings - how far it goes. <br /> <br />MAN IN AUDIENCE: It's a shame to use even 50% of the <br />City's money and/or our money if there's a good likelihood <br />that somebody else would pay the bill. It's a sensitive <br />issue because who knows at what point any of us should pay? <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN CHRISTIANSEN: <br />water now? (Audience response <br />to check it very frequently? <br /> <br />Are most of you using your <br />mostly yes.) Are you having <br /> <br />WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: The PCA is checking. They have <br />(inaudible) check the water four times a year, which is <br />really unheard of in their practice. They generally check <br />once a year (inaudible) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MAN IN AUDIENCE: I think you've hit us with something <br />that's not possible. Sure, $25.00 a foot - you could <br />probably change my mind. I might possibly say go ahead and <br />do it. But the whole thing revolves around, number one - <br />benefit for the dollars we're going to be asked to spend. <br /> <br />-11- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.