My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 11-29-04
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
CC 11-29-04
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2006 2:14:21 PM
Creation date
11/28/2005 3:10:04 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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 />City of Centerville <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />November 29, 2004 <br /> <br />Motion by Council Member Lee. seconded by Council Member Capra to approve <br />Res. #04-056. Delinquent Utilities. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Mayor Sweeney reviewed the process for special assessments, set rules of raising hands <br />and waiting to be spoken to, no one will speak a second time until everyone has had an <br />opportunity to speak once, once chosen to speak you will state your name and address for <br />the record. Mayor Sweeney stated that this is a special assessment hearing and the <br />Council will be discussing how the assessments were computed, whether they are proper <br />or need adjustment and Council would be taking action this evening to adopt the <br />assessment roll for the 2004 Street Project. The Mayor also stated that residents would <br />have a 30 day period to pay such special assessments without certification to the County <br />or interest being charged. <br /> <br />The Mayor opened the Public Hearing at 6:41 p.m. <br /> <br />City Engineer Peterson gave a brief discussion regarding the total project costs and how <br />the assessments were determined per lot. Mr. Peterson stated that the average assessment <br />was $7,000 per lot. <br /> <br />Mr. Dave Lutz, 7170 Shad Avenue, stated that this would be his third time paying for a <br />road and the catch basis water still runs through his property. Mr. Lutz also stated that it <br />would cost an additional $5,000 to $6,000 to hook into the system. Mr. Lutz questioned <br />what benefit was it to his property. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson stated that sand had been excluded from the sub-grade of the roadway <br />previously and it is expected that the roadway will last from 20 to 25 years. Mr. Peterson <br />also stated that water services would be available which would aid in fire protection to all <br />of the areas served. A tanker for transportation of water would no longer be needed and <br />that a concrete curb and gutter would last indefinitely. <br /> <br />Mr. Lutz felt that his property value would not increase by the amount to be assessed to <br />his property. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson stated that an appraisal of Mr. Lutz' property would show that he would <br />benefit from such services. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft stated that courts have previously stated that properties receiving <br />similar improvement do receive a benefit and same is allowed to be assessed. <br /> <br />Mr. Lutz felt that maybe half of the cost or proposed benefit should be assessed but not <br />all. <br /> <br />Mr. Hoeft stated that all residents have the right to appeal the special assessment and <br />same is based on construction costs. Mr. Hoeft stated that residents needed to understand <br />that if they appeal, they will go to a court hearing and appear in front of a judge who may <br />determine that the special assessment amount is low or high. <br /> <br />Page 2 of 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.