My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/07/1982 Meeting Minutes
DOcument-Host
>
Mayfield Village
>
Meeting Minutes
>
1982
>
06/07/1982 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2019 9:13:52 AM
Creation date
7/20/2018 8:25:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Legislation-Meeting Minutes
Document Type
Meeting Minutes
Date
6/7/1982
Year
1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Mr. Carmen said paving may be a more economical solution from the standpoint <br />that once the property owner is assessed the Village has the responsibility <br />of ma.intenance. That would not take into consideration the rustic appearance <br />of the road. <br />A resident asked if there is any assurance the Village wbuld assume the <br />responsibility of ma.intenance after the property owners are-assessed for the <br />cost of paving. <br />Mr. Carmen said he did not know of any road in the Village that has been paved <br />that has not been accepted for maintenance. <br />Mr. Feneli said, a one year maintenance bond is required for all newly paved <br />streets. After that year maintenance would be the responsibility,of the Village. <br />Mr. Etzler.pointed out that the.maintenance bond is put up by the contractor, <br />it is not the responsibility of the residents. <br />Mr. Feneli said for Councils information as well as the residents, an amendment <br />to Chapter 727 of the Ohio Revised Cocle which concerns assessments was recently <br />passed and.went into effect March 15 this year. Under this new provision, if <br />a person to be assessed eould prove they could not.afford the assessment (such <br />as they were "laid off from work) Council could.provide relief.. They could ask <br />that payment be made when the person returns to work, within a given number of <br />months or years, or they could defer collection until such time as the property <br />is sold, and our bill would remain as a lien on the property. <br />Mr. Fetzer asked if Mr. Hovancsek's estimate included a dust inhibitor. <br />Mr. Hovancsek stated that would be an.additional cost. <br />A resident asked if these figures could be listed in a letter and further <br />discussion could be held after that information is available. <br />Mr. Feneli stated there are two ways to go regarding maintenance. One is to <br />have the Village do the work and have the Beech Hill residents reimburse the <br />Village. The other would be to have the residents find their own contractor. <br />He said any figure given would be _subject to change, even within a week. An <br />issue for Council to consider is how would the money be collected? Possibly, <br />if a notice is sent of money due', and it is not paid, it could automatically <br />go on the tax duplicate to be collected with the property tax. <br />A resident asked why the assessment could not go on the tax duplicate to begin <br />with. <br /> Mr. Feneli explained the cost to the resident would be higher, if there was a <br /> way to work out an automa.tic payment .it would be to the residents. benefit <br /> to do it that way. <br /> Mr. Carmen asked if an ordinance could be drafted conditionally accepting the <br /> street for maintenance, conditioned upon the residents paying so much per year <br /> the Village would then be willing to pay something to help them along.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.