pages: CityCouncil/2015-07-07.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2015-07-07 | 6 | Determining the Existence of a Majority Protest and Abandoning the Proceedings to Increase such Assessments Therein." Adopted. Mayor Spencer, the City Clerk and the City Attorney discussed the process. The Management Analyst gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is required to pass this measure, to which the Management Analyst responded fifty plus one majority of the ballots submitted. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Management Analyst stated maintenance of public waste cans is part of the scope of work and can be increased if the ballot is successful. Mayor Spencer stated that she does not support the use of the word "courageous", Council's role is to facilitate and not intervene one way or another. Mayor Spencer opened the public hearing. Spoke in opposition to increasing the boundary and the assessment: Walter McQueston, Masonic Hall. Complimented the City and Park Street Business Association; additional trash receptacles are needed: Mona Hanson, Alameda. Discussed trash receptacles: Robb Ratto, Downtown Alameda Business Association. Mayor Spencer inquired what the Masonic Hall currently pays, to which the Management Analyst responded the Masonic Hall is not part of the current boundary of the district; stated as the boundary is being extended to include the Masonic Hall as part of the ballot. Mayor Spencer inquired who made the determination to extend the boundary, to which the Management Analyst responded it was determined through general benefit analysis by the engineer's report commissioned by staff. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated the businesses within Masonic are part of the PSBA and by law, if there is a benefit, the business has to pay for the benefit. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council approved a contract to conduct the assessment analysis in February 2014; the analysis is complicated; any assessment increase triggers Proposition 218 special benefit analysis which requires a parcel-by-parcel review of land use and benefit, rather than the previous analysis which was based on acreage and frontage; State law mandates that any entity that benefits must be assessed; there will be hard feelings but the assessment is complying with State law. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 July 7, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-07-07.pdf |