Laserfiche WebLink
between this and I'.e old procedure that the City would <br />specially assess annually or under the new ruie would <br />have to establish a new hearing every year. The <br />difference between the proposed system is; <br />A. That most of the billings would be paid when <br />billed and that the numoer to be assessed would be <br />substantially reduced. <br />B. No specific public hearing is required for <br />assessment of delinquents, only notice of the <br />delinquency. <br />C. The notices of those delinquent would be generated <br />through the computer. On the old system this was all <br />handled manually because it was a seperate system. <br />Program for Implementation - <br />Private Liqhts/Not Current ly Funded ^ City - This <br />cTtTgTf y, which would include the ones on <br />Livingston/Lyric would submit a petition and if the <br />neighborhood agrees they would be placed on; <br />Private/previously assessed - For these lights the City <br />could do one of four things: <br />A.) Given the fac. that the City had previously <br />assessed these and the people were paying for them, <br />the City could choose to place the fee on the utility <br />billings and respond to questions from there. <br />The one who were previously assesed would be in a <br />different position "than as they would would not have <br />signed a "contract/petition" with the City. <br />B. ) The City could send out a communication <br />explaining its position, schedule it as an agenda <br />item and based on response determine how it desire to <br />handle that program. <br />C. ) Annually assess with public hearing noticf <br />D. ) Discontinue paying the lights until the property <br />owners enter into a contract. <br />ALTERNATIVES - <br />Pol > Alternatives <br />Street Light - Livingston Avenue <br />a.) Accept any lights on Livingston/Lyric (3) by <br />City.