Laserfiche WebLink
u <br /> Page 8 <br /> Assessments <br /> 9/27/93 <br /> packet you will find an assessment history of the Zeec.e <br /> property over the past 10 years. Mrs Zeece was assessed for <br /> both stem sewer and street improvements. The storm sewer was <br /> not to be assessed, since his site does not contribute to the <br /> new system* The street assessment is in line with city policy <br /> and should stand. <br /> CO The second verbal objection was from Mr. Kris Kringle owner of <br /> 1887 and 1895 Rice street* His objection was to a storm sewer <br /> assessment in the amount of -$11780o.36 for one parcel and <br /> $490.40 for the second parcel. After further review of this <br /> assessment, it was found that the assessment was <br /> inappropriately apportioned to this property, and Mr. Mringle's <br /> property should not have received an assessment for storm <br /> serer,. <br /> Therefore, staff recommends that the assessment for $1,780. 36 <br /> and $490.40 be removed from the parcels owned by Mr. ringle. <br /> do, The third verbal objection was from Mr. Roger Mess representing <br /> both his personal property on Wagner Place and the company <br /> property on Rice street. Mr. Hess had concerns in regards to <br /> the quality of workmanship on the project and also some minor <br /> punch list items that will be taken care of through the <br /> contractors <br /> The Hess Hairmilk building is located on the corner of <br /> Mcarrons Street and Mice Street. A portion of the property <br /> drains into the system, and the back portion of the parcel <br /> drains into, the new city system, The property was assessed for <br /> 2.00 units in the amount of 490.40# Since a portion of the <br /> property drains to the state system, the 'parcel should only be <br /> assessed for 1.00 unit in the amount of $249,70. <br /> 8# P-92-02 and q-9 2-1 Neichborhood 74 <br /> ae Two written objections were received prior to the public <br /> hearing. Mr. Tim Quinn of 352 S. MdCarrons Boulevard objection <br /> was related to the storm sewer improvements contesting that he <br /> does not contribute to the new storm sewer. This item was <br /> identified in the field, and it is determined that an old <br /> existing system does drain the Quinn propertyo. When S. <br /> Mccarrons Boulevard is upgraded by the county, this existing <br /> storm sewer will be removed and the inp l ace storm sewer from <br /> project ST-92e-.14 will be utilizedw Mr. Quinn has been <br /> contacted and informed of this situation. He prefers to have <br /> the assessment dropped and assessed at a later date when the <br /> county upgrades S. Mcc Irons Boulevard <br />