Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />May 13, 1986 <br />Mr. Fahey indicated that this information was incorrect. That <br />information is the basis of assessment law that the City has to <br />establish that a property value would increase in proportion to <br />the size of the assessment. <br />Fahey pointed out that there are many City services that do not <br />directly benefit each property. Fahey pointed out that the City's <br />past policy has been to assess sewer and watermain improvements <br />on the basis of an 80 - 20% split. The benefited property is <br />assessed 80% of the cost of the improvement and 20% is spread <br />out on general taxes. Fahey pointed out that there are properties <br />in the City that do not have City water that have been picking up <br />this 20% for years. <br />The Council took a show of hands as to who was in favor of the <br />projects as proposed by the City Engineer and who was not. It <br />appeared that there was a 50-50 split. <br />Mr. Villeaux asked the cost of the improvements that would include <br />street overlay in addition to storm sewer. <br />Mr. Fahey replied that the City has not worked out these estimates, <br />but street overlays, watermain and sanitary sewer improvements <br />would require separate public hearings at which time these figures <br />would be presented to the property owners. <br />Mr. Peter Costa asked if there would be other storm sewer projects <br />in addition to those outlined by the Engineer. <br />Fahey replied that there would be, but these would be major ones <br />on vacant land that would be the responsibility of the developer <br />of the property. <br />The audience asked about cleaning of ditches. <br />Ms. Nardini replied that it appears the Watershed has been discussing <br />this, and the City would pursue it with the Watershed. <br />Mr. Earl Van Norman, 2372 Greenbrier Circle, reported that he did <br />not believe the drainage improvements would benefit his property nor <br />the property of about 85% of the people in Little Canada. Van Norman <br />stated that he can appreciate that people have drainage problems, <br />but suggested that these homes were built in areas where they should <br />not be. <br />Cameron Murray, 425 E. Sextant, stated that he felt the Engineer's <br />plan was well thought out and that the financial arrangements of <br />the plan would not impose extra burden on the taxpayers of the City. <br />Murray did not feel the projects would decrease his property values <br />and felt that if the City has a reputation of drainage problems, this <br />could very well decrease the saleability of his home. Murray felt <br />the City should go forward with the plan as proposed. <br />Page -8- <br />