My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/11/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
9/11/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:10 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:40:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/11/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
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
B0x 84, <br />SEP 111991 <br />concerned about doing this without creating a real big problem <br />and spreading it through all the districts. <br />Administrator Chandler pointed out that if we look at a <br />change in the formula in this and all districts, it would have to <br />be submitted and considered by the Commission and adopted before <br />January 1st. <br />Commissioner Eggert still wished to know if as an adjustment <br />board we can make this adjustment for Fred Mensing who has 5 <br />acres and came in and asked, and the rest who did not come in and <br />ask would continue on in the same way and then we will change it <br />next year. <br />Attorney Vitunac confirmed that can be done just for Mir. <br />Mensing because no one else has met their burden of proof. <br />Director Davis expressed his confusion as to how we can take <br />an ordinance adopted in a public hearing and establishing a <br />particular MSTU, and then in budget and without that due process, <br />manipulate the ordinance and change methods of assessment that <br />are established in the ordinance. <br />Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that Attorney Vitunac is <br />saying that we are not doing that - that we are considering it <br />as an equalization board and making an adjustment, not changing <br />the mechanism or the ordinance. <br />Attorney Vitunac further noted that this doesn't destroy the <br />validity of the ordinance, but just recognizes that in individual <br />cases the process may be unfair. <br />Administrator Chandler raised the question as to how we <br />spread the balance of the cost to the other property owners who <br />aren't here if we reduce the assessment for Mr. Mensing. <br />Commissioner Scurlock believed we could take that amount <br />from reserves, but OMB Director Baird did not feel that could be <br />done because the Property Appraiser has a tax code that runs <br />throughout, and he would have to reduce everyone else. <br />Chairman Bird continued to stress that he is all for <br />studying this and then fixing it if we find the ordinance is <br />wrong, and Commissioner Wheeler agreed that it seems like we are <br />running a considerable risk for the Commission to get involved in <br />all this now just for $24.00. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- <br />missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously agreed to <br />stay with the proposed $6.00 per parcel/acre assessment <br />for the Roseland Road Street Lighting District and <br />instructed staff to look into this during the next fiscal <br />year as discussed. <br />52 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.