1967 Jan to Dec - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

_L instructed how refund could be handled in these instances. Motion lost for lack of a second. After further discussion and questioning of Staff whether an adjustment might be possible after a further check of area computed because of inundated areas claimed, and which might have been included by oversight or miscalculation in the square footage of area and assessment charged thereon, Staff indicated this might have been possible and a readjustment of charges could be made. Staff directed to obtain records needed at this time and action delayed until records available. Councilman Rosselli asked for opportunity to comment in general on the proceedings which Council had authorized by contract for the weed abatement program for this year, and recommended a contribution be considered by City. He also indicated City in the future take care of weed abatement program by City forces and expense. Assistant City Attorney discussed procedure which would be necessary to make possible a. City contribution for application of a uniform distribution, but advised also that assessments for weed charges would have to be concluded as County needed these charges in preparing the Tax Roll. Councilman Granger moved again that Council contribute at least 50% to total costs of weed abatement program, seconded by Councilman Rosselli on basis such a contri- bution would not be without precedence. Further discussion and questioning by Council of Assistant City Attorney concerning how a contribution by City might be handled and its effect. Both Councilmen Bury and Keckley questioning effects of such a procedure and whether equitable in view of some property owners having done their own weed abatement work, others having no part in this assessment. City Manager agreed contribution by City in this instance would not be without precedence, but entirely a Council policy decision, but that assessments now pro- posed should be determined and hearing concluded. Motion lost on roll call vote, Councilmen Granger and Rosselli voting yes, Councilmen Bury, Keckley, Petersen, and Mayor Herkner voting no. Question of some possible contribution to this program to cover costs resulting from individual adjustments, was discussed. Councilman Granger moved that City contribute one-third of costs, towards weed abatement program, seconded by Coun- cilman Rosselli. After further discussion as to timing of such a motion before this hearing concluded, motion withdrawn. Mrs. Mary Cahill, 2618 Washington Ave. Santa Clara Parcel 057-242-010 $iq.6o Discussion held concerning protest which had been made by this pro- testant that few weeds present on this rocky and hilly terrain, but that such weeds had been abated by her own efforts. Staff recom- mended denial and described property as being in the Seminole -Mohican area., and that records show weed abatement by City and evidence proved by lack of weed abatement across the street in County area on similar type of terrain where weeds present. Councilman Petersen moved to confirm weed abatement charges and deny the reauest for cancellation of charges on this property, seconded by Councilman Bury and carried on roll call vote, Councilmen Bury, Petersen and Mayor Herkner voting yes, Councilman Granger voting no. ASSESSMENT CONFIRMED National Motor Bearing Company, Redwood City (Broadway and National Ave. - protest made by Wayne Blair, representing this Company at public hearing August 7, 1967) Parcel 054-012-030 0 21,4T $341.60