2008-02-12 Regular Council Session Agenda

Home Browse Search

assessment in percentage but concluded that the percentage should have also included the sidewalk and curbs and then would tabulate to nothing. He felt the subdivision was actually saving money as this area would not have to be done. Margaret Mooney, 528 Midvale Ms. Mooney is a trustee for the University Heights #1 subdivision but was present as the lawyer representing the subdivision. The subdivision received a petition with a 2/3 vote for approval of the subdivision residences. She stated that the Council could accept or reject the petition but could not amend it.The petition was voted on as presented. Mr. Sharpe, Jr. stated that the residents on the south side of Delmar came across the same problem but their subdivision excluded them from the assessment. Ms. Mooney said that according to the indentures of University Heights #1 subdivision, all residences have to abide by the vote of the 2/3 majority. Judy Baernstein, 793 Yale Ms. Baernstin is also a trustee and stated that the subdivision across Delmar chose not to include the residences on Delmar. She said that they understood the Delmar resident’s plight and attempted to give them the percentage decrease of what they were not receiving. Ms. Baernstein stated the foot path did not benefit one part of the subdivision over another. She said they deducted 35%, which was considered to be the sidewalk portion, from the properties on Delmar. Ms. Baernstein said these residences on Delmar receive the benefit of being members of the community. Ms. Ricci asked Ms. Mooney if they were going to correct the paragraph reference in number 16, since the Council could not amend the petition. Mr. Mulligan, the City Attorney, stated the resolution raised legal issues and requested time to present to the Council previous situations and how it was processed. He was in favor of a continuance so that he may prepare what the discretion for the Council is in defining the district and assessing a fair and equitable share of the improvements for the houses on Delmar. Mr. Mulligan explained that a Neighborhood Improvement District, (NIT) is not like a subdivision assessment. A NIT can be for as little as one piece of property. A NIT is designed to benefit a district although some may benefit more than others and may be assigned different assessment rates. Any number of properties can be excluded or assigned different rates. Mr. Mulligan stated this was an issue about ten years ago, concerning University Heights, and he would look for the paper work involved then and the issues that were addressed. Mayor Adams called for a voice vote to continue Resolution 2008 – 4 until next Council meeting, February 12, 2008, and was approved unanimously. BILLS – none L. CITIZENS’ COMMENTS Kathy Straatman, 6923 Crest Ave. Ms. Straatman complemented the recycling department on a job well done. She also wanted to comment on the delinquent trash bills. Ms. Straatman is alarmed at trash collection being halted or foreclosure on homes for delinquent bills.She would hope that