Minutes 1990 0521 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Minutes - San Leandro City Council Meeting - May 21, 1990 Page - 8 - PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) : Steve Bayley, Project Engineer, utilizing overhead projections to illustrate his presentation, reviewed the chronology of public information, including public information meetings, public hearings, and notices to property owners. Frank Addiego, Reimer Associates, the Engineer of Work, said his company prepared the Engineer's Report on the Assessment District. The City Council was provided with the listing of assessment amounts from the Engineer's Report. He described the work involved and the notices which had been mailed and published. He described the City's financial participation and sources of funds. He said the method of assessment, based upon special benefit to the parcels being assessed, is in accordance with the City's Underground Master Plan; the $110 per lineal foot fee is consistent with the Master Plan so that the City policy prevailed over any other methods of assessment. Bill Rugg, Community Development Director, discussed the undergrounding costs for the total Underground District, including Marina Boulevard, the I-880/Marina Interchange, Teagarden, Alvarado, and the Aladdin-Fairway Overcrossing. He described the benefits to the property owners from the undergrounding. He discussed the process for the City to borrow against future allocations from PG&E and the cost impact on these allocations if the Assessment District is not approved. He said staff had checked with the Alameda County Assessor and been informed that the Assessor would not reassess properties based upon the undergrounding. Sam Sperry, Bond Counsel , requested that he be permitted to address the Council at the close of the Public Hearings. He said the legal basis for the Assessment District is the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and the Engineer's Report. The Hearing was then opened to the public. Glen Forbes, an attorney representing property owners in the involved Assessment District, spoke regarding information that was given to the City Council regarding the assessments. He said that, because of the pre-payments that had been made, the assessment amounts had changed and he said he wanted to know the amounts of monies to be contributed through the property owners and pre-payments. He said that, in meetings in 1988, an Assessment District had been mentioned, and in 1989 there had been somewhat greater discussion. He said the amount specified had always been $110 per lineal foot and only in the last week had property owners been informed that the amount could be greater than $110. He said he was taken by surprise when he found Mr. Peterson's protest to the Assessment District was withdrawn. He submitted a map of the area showing properties which have formally protested. The City Clerk was asked when the letter withdrawing the protest from Mr. Peterson was received and responded it was received at 4:00 p.m. the date of the hearing. Mr. Forbes said he felt one essential element of an Assessment District is to show specific benefit to the assessees. He said no studies had been made to establish benefits and there had been no expert testimony. He repeated