Minutes 2004 1206 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

IVIINUTES Page 5 City of San Leandro City Council and San Leandro Redevelopment Agency Joint Meeting-December 6, 2004 have a clear understanding of the project scope and cost. He suggested that the Council could consider postponing its decision until staff have an opportunity to hold a meeting \vith the propeliy owners and until a n1ajority of the property owners support the project. Mr. Jennanis noted smne confusion on the part of the residents created by the second mailing sent out by the Engineering and Transportation Department, and it n1ay be helpful to continue the hearing to ascertain vlhether or not a n1ajority of the residents suppoli the in1provements to Walnut Drive. Councilmelnber Glaze asked if the $14,858 is a "one-tin1e good deal" for this assessn1ent district. He noted that with other assessment districts, the full cost was bon1e by the property owners. He asked if this type of deal would be extended to other silnilar projects. Mr. Jermanis confim1ed that this is a special deal for these property owners. He noted that son1e issues presented tonight, such as the storm drain which would also benefit Aurora Drive, were considered in detennining the cost distribution. Mr. Jem1anis indicated that if the project does not go forward now, the Council need not give any further special consideration for this project. Instead, he suggested that the City revert to n10re conventional financing whereby the property owners would bear the n1ajority of the project cost. Mr. Jermanis noted that State law allows the City to require propeliy owners to pay the full cost for these street in1provements, but the City has instead tried to work with the property owners in recognition that this is a long-standing issue. If the Council chooses to have staff hold another Ineeting with the residents, staff \vill n1ake it clear that this will be the residents' only opportunity for this special deal. As stated by Mr. Cooke, all property owners must pay the asseSSlnent if the majority choose to pmiicipate. Mayor Young suggested that the vote be read before the Councillnakes its decision. Councihnen1ber Santos noted that there has been confusion on the part of the residents due to the second ballot being sent to them. He suggested that this confusion n1ight have caused son1e residents to not return the second ballot after previously indicating suppmi for the proj ect. Mr. Cooke indicated that the procedures set fmih for the establishn1ent of an assessment district require affirmative support for its establishment from the members of the district, and an informal ballot was sent out to confirn1 this support. The second, formal ballot \vas required to be issued after the Resolution of Intention was adopted by the City Council. City Clerk Mmian Handa reported that three assessment ballots were returned, and all were in favor. Counciln1elnber Santos suggested that the public hearing be continued to allow property owners that have expressed their suppmi to subn1it their ballots. Counciln1en1ber Glaze questioned why the property owners did not submit their ballots if they \vere aware of the deadline. Counciln1ember Santos indicated that two of the property owners were unable to attend tonight's n1eeting.