New Search
Date: 11/13/92 <br /> From: Les Lyle CEWELAL - RIS1 <br /> To: Bob Hammitt CEWMJRH - RIS1 <br /> Johnny Medlin CEWMJRM - RIS1 <br /> Subject: N. Polk St <br /> Reference: Note from Joe Ferguson (CEWEJMF - RIS1) attached below <br /> Bob, Johnny - I think we've reached a point where we need to sit down and <br /> resolve the policy issues regarding this propsosed project. I'm very con- <br /> cerned with using SDC funds since this type of project was not an initial <br /> intent for the funds and I think we are pushing the justification for this <br /> project to far. Also, I can't recommend not assessing. I don't have any <br /> problem deducting funding from donations, but any remainder would need to be <br /> distributed to the adjoining properties. As Joe indicated, even if we could <br /> craft a justification for SDC's, it would only effect the park side not the <br /> residential side. Lets have a meeting? Any other ideas? Concerned, Les L <br /> ATTACHED NOTE <br /> Date: 11/10/92 <br /> From: Joe Ferguson CEWEJMF - RIS1 <br /> To: Les Lyle CEWELAL - RIS1 <br /> Subject: N. Polk St <br /> Reference: Note attached below <br /> Les, got a quickie opinion from Keith, which I passed along to John Etter. He <br /> has a mtg tomorrow evening (Wed) and needed this before that mtg. Keith though <br /> t we could make the arguments and proceed without assessing, but that it was a <br /> weak position, and bad policy. <br /> ATTACHED NOTE <br /> Date: 11/10/92 <br /> From: Joe Ferguson CEWEJMF - RIS1 <br /> To: John Etter CERMJFE - RIS1 <br /> Subject: N. Polk St <br /> John, got a telephone response from Keith on N. Polk St; written opinion will f <br /> ollow. I asked him 3 questions: <br /> 1. Is the area in question a right -of -way? <br /> A: On its face, no; deed is a typical warranty deed, conveying fee title, with <br /> no mention of street purposes. However, it appears that we have treated it lik <br /> e a street particularly by allowing the development of the adjoining properties <br /> and by the long established use as a r /w. <br /> 2. If it is r /w, can we construct the improvemnts without assessing the benefi <br /> tted properties? <br /> A: Yes, we have the legal right to do it. However it introduces a major polic <br /> y question - should we deviate from established policy. His opinion was no, bu <br />