Minutes 2004 1206 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

l\lINUTES Page 4 City of San Leandro City Council and San Leandro Redevelopment Agency Joint Meeting-December 6, 2004 Bo Johansen, San Leandro resident, addressed the City Council, stating that while he is in favor of paving Walnut Drive, he questions sonle of the financial aspects of the proposed assessn1ent district. Mr. Johansen asked the Council to send the nlatter back for further refinement. Letty Flores, San Leandro resident, addressed the City Council, stating that she voted in favor of the assessnlent district. Ms. Flores asked for another meeting between City staff and the residents regarding clarification of the cost figures. Lou Filipovich, San Leandro resident, addressed the City Council, agreeing with the previous speakers. Mr. Filipovich began addressing individual Councilmembers directly. Mayor Young requested that Mr. Filipovich direct his comments through the Chair. Mr. Filipovich called for a point of order. Assistant City Attorney Patrick Whitnell \vas in attendance at the meeting in the absence of City Attorney J aYl1e Williams, who was called away on a ll1edical elnergency. Mr. Whitnell stated that any conl1nents that a speaker wishes to make to an individual Councilmenlber must be directed through the Chair. Mr. Whitnell further stated that only nlembers of the Council can raise points of order. There being no further conlnlents fronl the public, and without objection, the Public Hearing was closed. Mayor Young asked if any of the houses on Walnut Drive have entrances on Aurora. Mr. Cooke confinned that there are houses on Walnut Drive which have entrances on Aurora. Mayor Young asked if assessn1ents can be proportional based on the size of the propeliy. Mr. Cooke stated that while a proportional assessment could have been considered, staff felt that the better option would be equal cost distribution. Mayor Young inquired about the cost to the residents. Mr. Cooke indicated that cost figures n01111al1y change as more detailed plan drawings are obtained. He noted that the cost figure quoted to the residents has been fixed since before the survey was sent out, and the only cost that has changed has been the cost to the City. Councihnelnber Grant noted the conID1ents from the residents and froln Mr. Cooke regarding the cost figures, and asked if the cost infoffi1ation provided to the Council by Mr. Cooke had been cOlnmunicated to the residents. Mr. Cooke stated that the info1111ation had not been directly comnlunicated to the residents, since their costs had not changed in the last couple ofn10nths. Mr. J en11anis cOll1nlented that there is still confusion on the part of the property owners regarding their pOliion of the cost of this project. He noted that the cost to the residents has been capped at 400/0 of the total cost of the project. At the tinle of the meeting with the residents, the total cost of the project was higher than it is currently, but the residents' cost has been set so as not to exceed $14,858. As Mr. Cooke indicated, the project costs are likely to continue to change, in part because the cost of materials, such as asphalt and concrete, is increasing. However, Mr. Jermanis stated that each property o\vner will not pay nlore than $14,858. Mr. Jennanis noted that this project is being perfonned principally for the benefit of the property owners, and it is impOliant that they