Laserfiche WebLink
<br />4 <br /> <br />~~YOR DEMOS: By the same token, that person that plotted <br />the lot was so told that when the plot was accepted. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN CURLEY: I go for 25%. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN FRANKE: There's something wrong with our policy. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: Then you might have developers coming in. <br />What's the difference if you have one on one side of the street <br />or both sides and you get stuck without any streets. It's better <br />to err this way than the other way. If you don't require this <br />of a developer at this point (inaudible) If you buy a lot on <br />County Road B today you're buying it with all improvements in, and <br />literally when they bought their lots from him he should have <br />included the cost of an improvement, but don't talk about changing <br />policy now because you do it on the spur of the moment and you <br />give away the whole store. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN FRANKE: I think it could bear some clarification. <br />I could just barely understand it myself so I don't know how they <br />could. What's the street going to cost me next year when the <br />street is done and we assess them next August? <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN CURLEY: Did you buy the lots from a developer. <br /> <br />FROM THE AUDIENCE: We bought the homes. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN CURLEY: I would be for the 25%. Mr. Bell, what if <br />we assessed one side of the street 25% and one side 100%? <br /> <br />MR. BELL: If there are no appeals, you have no problem. <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: I think I inadvertently said 33% and it's <br /> <br />37%. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: <br />so let's not give <br />decision on this, <br />away the store. <br /> <br />All I say is, you don't change the policy tonight,' <br />the store away tonight. If you want to make a <br />that's one thing, but I'm saying you don't give <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN FRANKE: I'm saying if it's hard for me to understand, <br />what chance do they have? <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: The total cost of this project is $52,300. <br />It was initiated by petition, as was indicated. There are 1320 <br />assessable feet in this project. Because of the policy, the <br />$39.60 is the front foot total cost. Because of your policy, <br />that property on one side would be at $39.60 per front foot, and <br />that on the other side would be $8.71 based on the 25% rule. <br /> <br />I have been perplexed about this approach as well. I can see <br />it applying when the subdivider comes in, and there you could give <br />them the whole cost. Some of the lots have been sold. If the <br />people got their lots at a lower price because the improvement was <br />not in, then this full cost would be reflected in it, where the <br />people across the street wouldn't have had that. The fact of <br />