My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/18/1965
LOSALTOSHILLS
>
City Clerk
>
City Council Minutes
>
1965
>
01/18/1965
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/19/2016 11:43:27 AM
Creation date
8/13/2015 3:01:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Minutes
Date
1965-01-18
Description
Regular Meeting Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
COMMITTEE REPORTS: Per Lot Assessment Cont'd.: <br />perhaps the time and money spent would be researching the - <br />wrong question. He was of the opinion it would be time <br />�{ betterspent"solving the problem of administration and <br />whether it was'within the resources of the Town to go into <br />the contracting business. if this research proved feasible, <br />them a rate could be set. <br />- Shwas also suggested at the Council Table that an alternative <br />of anoptional procedure could be worked out similar to <br />"in lieu" payments, to be exercised at the option of the <br />•Council; however, Mr. E. A. Breyman objected to this <br />approach since he felt it would encourage .Planning and <br />Council bargaining with the .developer. <br />Since the Planning Commission has been asking for action for <br />some time, Councilman i-iken felt a preliminary spot check <br />:study, with some help to the Staff and for which he volun- <br />teered to <br />olun-teered-to help, should be made, on the administrative portion <br />as well as the cost figure. <br />The Mayor referred to the City _,attorney Mr. Breyman'.s inquiry <br />as to what had been the problems of per lot assessment in. <br />the past. Mr. Faisant stated previous ordinances dealing with <br />per lot assessment had been drafted before his association <br />with the Town, his first assignment being to repeal those <br />�. pertinent ordinances; however, it was his understanding two <br />factors caused then to be rescinded.: <br />1) Wliat figure is set and hoti,: to provide for <br />contingencies. <br />The .setting up of the machinery governing <br />how the Town will spend this money,. as it puts <br />the Town on a large scale businessof <br />contracting. - <br />Following ,points were discussed:. inherent unfairness to <br />subdivider with small frontage and large in -tract improve- <br />ments as it is unfair to the developer with large off - <br />tract improvements and no in -tract improvements; future <br />development will be in steeper terrain and that engineering <br />problems might cause the figure to go beyond the per lot <br />assessment and be not properly in the purview.of the Town; <br />in advertising for bids, can the Town compete with the kind <br />of price the developer could improve for;. and, ti -me element <br />having improvements completed and the Town's liability.. <br />,The City Attorney stated a formal questionaire has been sent <br />to other Cities inquiring how they have handled the subject of <br />improvements. It was the opinion of the Council if the. <br />problems of the administration of "per lot assessment" can <br />'first be solved and a procedure established, setting the <br />wr, rate would not be a problem. <br />-2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.