Laserfiche WebLink
83 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Feneli reported the Assessment Equalization Board met last week and reviewed <br />the object.ions to the assessments for Beechers Brook.and Beech Hill roads. They <br />need more time to consider any adjustments on the assessments and he is still <br />researching the private road vs. public road issue. He should be able to report <br />to Council at the next Caucus. <br />Mr. Feneli said in reference to Parkview Golf Course, which was listed on the <br />agenda, he has not yet heard from the attorney, Mr. Welty. He called Mr. Welty <br />today and feels he should know something by the July Caucus. <br />Regarding the recodif ication of the Codified Ordinances Mr. Feneli explained the <br />company must be chosen before much of the work can be started. The two companies <br />who submitted bids last year should be contacted and asked to update their quotes. <br />Discussion was held. <br />Mayor Beebe and Mr. Feneli will contact the two companies to request an updated <br />quote. <br />Mr. Amendola commented a number of items from the Building Department for <br />recodification must be voted on by the residents and the deadline to get these <br />on the November ballot is in 45 days. He pointed out the final recodification <br />could take place after that time. <br />Mr. Feneli reported the Paris vs. Mayf ield Village pretrial is scheduled for <br />August 1st at 10:45 a.m. The court has not yet ruled on his decision to <br />dismiss the case. <br />Regarding the collective purchase of hospitalization by several municipalities <br />that Ma.yor Beebe asked him to.researoh, he has contacted the Regional Income <br />Tax Agency. He explained R.I.T.A. is.not only a tax collection.agency, they <br />r.epresent a union of governments. They have expressed interest in combining <br />municipalities for groug purchases: They indicated they would be willing to <br />discuss this with all interested municipalities. Mr. Feneli will contact Mr. <br />Ben Sutton of Sutton Insurance to advise him of.this. <br />Mrs. Hanus commented that she understood the Equalization Assessment Board <br />only permitted one person per household to speak at the Hearing and she did <br />not agree with that procedure and asked why it was done. <br />Mr. Beneli explained that decision was ma.de by the Equalization Assessment <br />Board and he had no reason'to go against their ruling. They felt in lieu of <br />the time factor this procedure would be more efficient and avoid redundancy. <br />Those present were told they would be permitted to speak on a point their <br />spouse had not already brought up, only if time permitted. The Equalization <br />Assessment Board were to hear objections.of the estimated assessment cost only, <br />not objections to the project itself. He pointed out there were people present <br />who had not complied with the correct procedure of f iling a written objection <br />who were permitted to voice their objections.