09-18-1972 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PUBLIC HEARING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 225 - (Continued) Mary E. Angler, Cousin of Eva A. Johnson, 2602 West Occidental Street, Assessment No. 25Z, protested on behalf of her cousin, stating that Mrs. Johnson is elderly and on fixed Social Security income, and would not be able to meet expenses° 10. /IohnParsons, 2329 Stanford Street, Assessment No. 079, objected to how his lot was charged (on adjusted front footage). 11. Ruth Brinkman, 9161 Arrington, Downey, Assessment Nos. 05 and 06, stated that there was water standing at Center and Pomona Streets since there was incomplete drainage. 12. J. Ogden Markel, No Assessment Number, stated that all properties were to be improved with sidewalks, curbs and street paving, and further stated that lot 4 does not have a sidewalk. He further protested Mayor Griset voting on the assessment district because Mayor Griset is the owner of two shares of voting stock in a water company that supplies water in the district. The Director of Public Works stated that a few days after the publication of the Notice of Assessment along with the date of hearing, a letter had been sent to each property owner advising that the City wanted to provide as much information as possible prior to the hearing so that the property owners would understand how the rate had been calculated. He stated that a number of phone calls were received and the necessary information was provided. He stated that in cases where there was a difference in the amount of the assessment between two lots side by side, one of the lots probably had an existing driveway and that person had been given credit for it; and that his neighbor's property had not been given that credit, which could make a difference of $100. tie indicated another factor was that driveway widths differed, lie stated that there were two assessments where there had actually been mistakes made in calculating the amount of the assessment; namely, Assessment No. 086 where credit was erroneously given for a curb which did not exist and that particular assessment would be increased from $451.19 to $507.91; and Assessment No. 188 where credit was not given for an existing curb, so the assessment would be reduced from $484.81 to $446.27. He stated that a number of protests that were filed involved philosophies of district taxes. He reminded Council that the hearing was being held for two reasons: 1) To determine whether assessments are correctly calculated; and 2) To determine whether the workmanship has met the standards of the City's plans and specifications. He further stated that with respect to Mr. Markel~s protest, the district did not include any improvements on Edinger Avenue, but only in areas as stated in the Resolution of Intention. Councilman Patterson asked if staff had reviewed the area, and if they had seen the improvements and were satisfied that they met City codes and standards, and the Director of Public Works responded that they had. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -375- SEPTEMBER 18, 1972