02-09-00 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 9, 2000 The City Administrator pointed out that the ability to develop some of the properties that Mr. Vitale was referring to is either poor or the property has frontage on another road and would be liable for assessments should that road improve in the future. The Administrator pointed out that only about 20 to 25% of total project costs are proposed to be assessed. Other taxpayers in the City will be subsidizing this project even though they do not own property on Little Canada Road. Vitale pointed out that he would be one of those taxpayers as well. The City Administrator also pointed out that the County would not include the streetscape amenities in the project that the City is proposing, and it is Little Canada, as a community, that decided these improvements are necessary for the area. Vitale felt that these improvements should be paid for by the community as a whole. Vitale asked that the Council give some consideration to the amount of his assessment based on the fact that other property owners own more land, but will be paying a smaller assessment. Scalze pointed out the commercial exposure that the Vitale property has to Little Canada Road versus the limited exposure that the Rutzick property has as an example. Fahey did not feel that the Council was prepared to change its assessment policy at this point. There was no one else from the general public present wishing to comment on this matter. Upon motion by LaValle, seconded by Fahey, the public hearing was closed. Fahey asked if the Counci] supported the fully developed street, or the scaled-down version for Little Canada Road at Rice Street. LaValle, Scalze, and Fahey supported the scaled-down version. Morelan suggested that perhaps there is some alternative so that the City does not have to spent an extra $210,000 on the street in the future. Fahey pointed out that Morelan is assuming the property would redevelop in a way that would cause the street to have to be widened. Fahey indicated that he was not convinced that the scaled-down version would need to be modified when the corner redevelops. Scalze agreed. Morelan pointed out the redevelopment guide for the area and felt that if the Council went with the scaled-down version of the street, it was abandoning its goal for that intersection.