My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
CC Min 1997-06-09
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
CC Min 1997-06-09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/5/2005 2:44:27 PM
Creation date
4/6/2004 9:12:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
6/9/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> I I I II <br /> <br /> Mr. Euphrat said, "The legal community believes that this kind of automatic inflation <br /> will probably withstand scrutiny and challenges in courts. But it is quite possible that <br /> '-- somewhere in Califomia some community will put in an inflation factor, some property <br /> owners will say 'no' you can't do that, it is counter to Proposition 218, it will be litigated, <br /> and then we will find out if we can do the automatic equation. If it turns out that the court <br /> says 'no' you can't, which could be twenty-five years from now, then you won't be able to <br /> make the increase without a vote. Then you will have to deal with it then." <br /> In response to Councilman Leipzig's questions regarding a legal challenge, Mr. Euphrat <br /> said, "These legal issues are always litigated very narrowly. . .. In a broader sense in trying <br /> to respond to your question... I believe it would not throw out the maximum budget of <br /> $155,000, merely the increases. It would push you back to the $155,000." He added that <br /> the results of the election would be based only on the ballots returned, weighted by the <br /> assessed dollar value, and only a simple majority was required. <br /> In response to Councilman Leipzig's questions regarding the benefits of an Assessment <br /> District in this case, City Manager Everett said that early on, because of the complexities <br /> of Proposition 218, the City proposed that the owners associations assume the <br /> responsibility of the higher level landscape maintenance that they wanted. He said the <br /> Associations did not want that responsibility and said they preferred an Assessment <br /> District. <br /> In response to mayor Pro Tern Howard's questions, Mr. Euphrat said the formulae for <br /> - these kinds of Districts were in uncharted territory because of Proposition 218. He <br /> described the negotiations that established the percentages for each of the components, <br /> commercial, residential and the owners associations, the concept of general benefit and <br /> open space. <br /> Mayor Pro Tern Howard expressed her support for bike trails that would go through the <br /> District and connect to other areas. <br /> In response to Mayor Pro Tern Howard's questions, Superintendent Hover said staff <br /> had identified three different levels oflandscape maintenance, and services such as picking <br /> up litter, was included, in even the lowest level maintenance. <br /> In response to Councilman Ruskin's questions regarding the general benefit area, City <br /> Manager Everett said City staff, the owners associations and developers agreed that the <br /> 12% for general benefit was reasonable and could be defended if challenged. He added <br /> that Proposition 218 had not been challenged in court, but the City did the best it could to <br /> meet the criteria contained in that law. <br /> Mayor Pro Tern Howard called upon anyone in the audience who wished to speak to this <br /> Issue. <br /> --- <br /> ADJOURNED REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 55 JUNE9,1997 <br /> MINUTES Page No. 397 PAGE 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.