Laserfiche WebLink
CITIZEN COMMENTS <br />Thomas Saliba, 6939 Delmar <br />Mr. Saliba voiced his opposition to the NID of University Heights #1. The north side of <br />Delmar was assessed according to the front footage of the residence. The residences <br />on the north side of the 6900 block of Delmar receive maintenance on their sidewalk, <br />curbs and streets from St. Louis County and therefore will not receive any benefit from <br />this NID assessment. He is asking that the north side of the 6900 block of Delmar be <br />excluded from this NID petition assessment. He stated that they offered to reduce their <br />assessment in percentage but concluded that the percentage should have also included <br />the sidewalk and curbs and then would tabulate to nothing. He felt the subdivision was <br />actually saving money as this area would not have to be done. <br /> <br />Margaret Mooney, 528 Midvale <br />Ms. Mooney was present to as a legal representative for the University Heights #1 <br />subdivision. The subdivision received a petition with a 2/3 vote for approval of the <br />subdivision residences. She stated that the Council could accept or reject the petition <br />but could not amend it. The petition was voted on as presented. <br /> <br />Mr. Sharpe, Jr. stated that the residents on the south side of Delmar came across the <br />same problem but their subdivision excluded them from the assessment. Ms. Mooney <br />said that according to the indentures of University Heights #1 subdivision, all residences <br />have to abide by the vote of the 2/3 majority. <br /> <br />Judy Baernstein, 793 Yale <br />Ms. Baernstin is also a trustee and stated that the subdivision across Delmar chose not <br />to include the residences on Delmar. She said that they understood the Delmar <br />resident’s plight and attempted to give them the percentage decrease of what they were <br />not receiving. Ms. Baernstein stated the foot path did not benefit one part of the <br />subdivision over another. She said they deducted 35%, which was considered to be the <br />sidewalk portion, from the properties on Delmar. Ms. Baernstein said these residences <br />on Delmar receive the benefit of being members of the community. <br /> <br />Ms. Ricci asked Ms. Mooney if they were going to correct the paragraph reference in <br />number 16, since the Council could not amend the petition. <br /> <br />Mr. Mulligan, the City Attorney, stated the resolution raised legal issues and requested <br />time to present to the Council previous situations and how it was processed. He was in <br />favor of a continuance so that he may prepare what the discretion for the Council is in <br />defining the district and assessing a fair and equitable share of the improvements for the <br />houses on Delmar. Mr. Mulligan explained that a Neighborhood Improvement District, <br />(NID) is not like a subdivision assessment. A NID can be for as little as one piece of <br />property. A NID is designed to benefit a district although some may benefit more than <br />others and may be assigned different assessment rates. Any number of properties can <br />be excluded or assigned different rates. Mr. Mulligan stated this was an issue about ten <br />years ago, concerning University Heights, and he would look for the paper work involved <br />then and the issues that were addressed. <br /> <br />Mayor Adams called for a voice vote to continue Resolution 2008 – 4 until next Council <br />meeting, February 12, 2008, and was approved unanimously. <br />BILLS – none <br /> <br />