Laserfiche WebLink
Session 1915 <br />March 29, 2004 <br /> <br />Mayor Adams declared the Public Hearing open at 7:46 p.m. <br /> <br />Cleatta Goliday, 6953 Raymond Avenue, expressed several concerns about this <br />project: first, is the need for citizens to pay for pavement of the alley. She feels this <br />should not be a requirement. Next, she complained that the alley has not been properly <br />maintained during the years she has been a resident: rocks are not properly set and <br />deep holes exist, and were there prior to paving. Thirdly, she understood that property <br />owners would pay an equal amount, but letters received by residents stated the amount <br />owed to be based upon the size of the home owned. She said the alley was used <br />equally by residents, and residents do not own the alley. She thinks it unfair for her to <br />be asked to pay more than other residents, especially when residents were informed <br />differently. <br /> <br />Mayor Adams advised her that charges for Public Works improvements are based <br />upon front footage. He said citizens should have been advised that their charges would <br />be based upon frontage, or since this instance concerns the alley, the "backage," which <br />is the square footage of the owner's property, facing the alley. Ms. Goliday expressed <br />concern that information imparted at meetings regarding this charge was both <br />inaccurate and unfair. <br /> <br />Mr. Sharpe asked Mr. Ollendorff if he had advised citizens at meetings that this charge <br />would be "equalized," and Mr. Ollendorff responded that information he presented both <br />in writing and at meetings, was that typically the charge is assessed per linear foot and <br />that the City Council sets that amount each year. This year the Council set the amount <br />for assessment at $25.20 per linear foot. This wording appears in the petition which five <br />of the six property owners signed. At one of the preliminary meetings, there was <br />discussion of other ways of assessing. One option mentioned was that if all property <br />owners agree upon some other method, the City Council would usually accept it. For <br />instance, if all agreed that they preferred the charge to be "equal per lot", the Council <br />would agree to it. However, in this case, five of the six property owners signed a petition <br />which indicated "$25.20 per linear foot." Mr. Ollendorff said that this could be changed if <br />property owners want to get together and recommend some other method of <br />assessment to the Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Sharpe said his impression was the cost would be "equalized" among the residents, <br />and Mr. Ollendorff said that they could certainly do that. Mr. Sharpe continued that he <br />understood that was what was all ready agreed upon, but Mr. Ollendorff said it was not <br />what was "signed for." What they signed for was a petition which used the specific <br />words, "... approval of the project will result in an assessment of $25.20 per linear foot <br />for each property adjacent to the alley." That is what was approved. They may change <br />their minds, and/or the City Council can then approve their choice. Mr. Ollendorff <br />suggested "hearing from other residents" before making that change. <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br /> <br />