02-01-1965 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Als0~ 2hat Texaco, Incorporated ha~ a valid protest as they are connected to a~other' SeWer and he recommended that the assessment be reduced to zero; that Mrs. Shalika'$ Property is part of the Garden Grove Sanitary District an~ should also be reduced to zero; and that the city's c~tribution be increased fram $~,500 to M~. Jones recommended a resoluti°n modifying the assessment roll as Prepared by eliminate-_= $330 therefrom, representing two laterals and parcel numbers previOUsly mentioned and by reducing to zero the two parcels connected to the Garden Gr~ve Sanitary District; that a separate resolution be made where~n the city increases its contribution to include the amounts of the two parcels already ~n the Garden Grove Sanitary District; and that the assessment then be confirmed by Resolution. Mr. Wolford explained the method of assessment ~n~ stated he felt all properties benefitted with the exception of the two parcels already reco~aended to be excluded. Ne ansWered Mr. Harvey's question regarding ~ama~e~l property, stating that he was not satisfied that the ~A~age to Mr. Clark' s property had been caused by the contractor and that no investigatio~ had yet been made of a Second ~a~age clai~ submitted at the meeting. The Mayor suggested that Mr. Olark meet with the Director and investigate the street drainage dip an~ ~riveway. Edwin Martin~ ~11 N. Broadway~ attorney for Andrew Boerama~ stated that the asseSSment had been inequitably applied to various properties; that Mr. Boersma had property surrounded by the district but not Included; that several nei~hbor- ~-_= properties with more acreage paid less; static=_ further that his chief' concern was with the limitations and restrictions being made on the assessed sewer lines. He also questioned service connections to WillowicE Golf C~urse and an unidentified residence not being assessed. The Director of Public Works explained that the two acres had been left out because they Were an isolated parcel having no frontage. Ne explained that it was necessary to run a line along the river bed adjacent to Willowick to connect with the ~th Street sewer but that the City is contribut- ing for off site construction and that when Willowick or the residential property desire seWer service they will pay a connection fee. Alfred C. Bonuey, 25~0 French, protested inclusion of his parcel because the land assessed is used as a parking 1Ct and can therefomreceive no benefit. Far. aa Alarcon, 3~02 W. 7th~ protests& being charged for four laterals when only ~wo heal been installed. John Pren~ergast, Constx"Action ~-=~ineer, verified that four laterals ha~ actually been 'installed. There being no further testi~o~y, the hearing was closed. FJ~OL~TION 6]-~ O~D~ING CHAN~ES AND M~ICATIO~ ~ ASS~S~ AT TtE T~ OF ~G ~N ~ ~ ASS~S~ DIS~I~ NO. 2~ ~s reaa By title. It ~s l~od ~ Co~cil--~ H~, secon~ by C~ci~-~- Gi~ore t~t ~her rea~ be ~ive~ ~ Resolution ~-28 be ~o~e~. ~ roll call vote: Hubbard, Harvey, Gilmore, Schlueter, Hall None N~ne AYES, COUNCIL$~EN = NOES, C~C~: AES~T, COUNCIIt~EN: ~ESOLUTION 6~-29 A~OR~G ~D~L CO~I~ION ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ASS~ D~ICT ~0. 2~ ~s rea~ By title.~ It ~s ~ by C~ci~ HubS, seceded C~ci~ G~o~ t~t ~her ~ad~ be ~iv~ ~d Resolution 6~-2~ Be ~te~. ~ roll ca~ vote: AYES, COUNCII~EN: NOES, C OUNC ~: AES~T, COUNCIl: Hubbard, Harvey, Gilmore, Schlueter, Hall None None CITY COUNCIL - 160 - February 1, 1965