The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/03/1998, 2 - 1911 ACT SIDEWALK INSTALLATION PROGRAM (2) EETIN 'p8 AGENDA DATE ITEM # council mcmonanbum 7-7-77 February 27, 1998 0 CDD DIP RN DIP TO: City Council FEE — p��7 R CHIEF fd"PW DIP FROM: Jeff Jorgensen 0 POLICE C,::' r 0 EIEC DIP SUBJECT: 1911 Act Sidewalk Installation Program 0 UTIL DIP O PERS DIR The agenda item scheduled for March 3, 1998 concerning the 1911 Act Sidewalk Installation Program has been continued at my request in order to analyze the impact of Proposition 218. After further research, it is my conclusion that Proposition 218 may significantly affect our ability to proceed under the 1911 Act, and substitutes onerous procedural requirements which may make the sidewalk program infeasible. Analysis: :The 1911 Act is a special assessment process authorized by Streets and Highways Code § 5000, et seq. As such, it is subject to the provisions of Proposition 218, which affects special assessments in three principal ways: • It subjects assessments to repeal or reduction by initiative, • It establishes procedural and other requirements for the levy of assessments, including the requirement for property owner approval by a new mail ballot process, and • It alters the burden of proof in legal actions to contest the validity of an assessment, and exposes the City to potential liability for attorney's fees and penalties for improperly imposed assessments. After discussion with Michael Colantuono of Richards, Watson and Gershon, who was a principal contributor to the League of California Cities paper, "Proposition 218: Implementation Guide," it was confirmed that the 1911 Act clearly falls within the provisions of Proposition 218. Proposition 218 provides an exemption for any assessment imposed exclusively to finance the capital cost or maintenance and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, flood control, drainage systems or vector control. Unfortunately, the exemption only applies to assessments "existing" on November 6, 1996. Therefore, the imposition of a new obligation at this time does not fall within the exemption. After the passage of Proposition 218 there was great uncertainty statewide concerning what procedures to follow when both Proposition 218 and some other process such as the 1911 Act were applicable. Government agencies were uncertain which process to apply (or both) and how to reconcile conflicts between inconsistent procedures. In order to clarify this problem, the Legislature adopted Government Code § 53753 in 1997. (A copy is attached for your information.) In short, Government Code § 53753 imposes the requirements of Proposition 218 notwithstanding any other process established by law. The new notice, protest, and hearing requirements include the following: • Forty-five days mailed notice to the record owner of each parcel with detailed information about the costs of the assessment and voting procedures. • Property owners may now express their support or opposition to proposed assessments by ballot, which must accompany the notice. No assessment may be imposed if a "majority protest" exists. The legislative body may no longer overturn a majority protest by a 4/5ths vote. Majority protests exist if ballots submitted in opposition exceed ballots submitted in favor of assessment. It is unclear how the "assessment ballot" procedures affect 1911 Act assessments, since there is not a defined district area as there is under most other assessment proceedings. For example, is the majority protest simply based on the properties included in this mailing? Or does each property constitute its own district (in essence giving each property 'veto" power over its own assessment)? We need to further research the details of implementation before proceeding. Given the past questions raised by the Council regarding this program, it is unclear if there is strong Council support for imposing sidewalk improvements on property owners who do not want them, and may have difficulty paying for them. In light of the procedural difficulties we may encounter in implementing this program, the Council may wish to review its commitment to this project before researching Proposition 218 requirements in further detail. JGJ/sw attach. c: City Administrative Officer Public Works Director Finance Director Assistant City Administrative Officer $ •53753. Notice,protest,grid hearing regniremenis' ;?:• The notice,"protest, and hearing .requirements imposed by this.section supersede any statutory 1 signs applicable to the levy of a new or increased assessment that is in existence on the,effectiye date of this section, whether or not that provision is in conflict with this article. Any agency that , complies with the notice,protest,and hearing requirements of this section shall not be required to comply with any other statutory notice, protest;and hearing requirements that would otherwise be applicable to the levy of a new or increased assessment,with the,exception of Division 4.5 (commencing with.Section new 3100)of the Streets and Highways Code. If the requirements of that divisio appya thearing e ri go=q or increased assessment, the levying agency shall comply with the notice, protest, ments imposed by this section as well as with the requirements of that division. to. he (b).Prior to levying a new or increased assessment, or an existing assessment that is subject on,an procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4 of Article XIII D of the CaliforniaConstitution,an agency shall give notice by mail to the record owner of each identified parcel. Each notice shall include the total amount of the proposed assessment chargeable to the entire district, the amount.chargeable to the record owner's parcel,the'duration of the payments, the reason for the assessment and the basis upon which the amount of the proposed assessment was calculated, and the date, time, and.location of a' public hearing on the proposed assessment. Each notice shall also include; in a conspicuous place thereon,a summary of the procedures for the completion,return,and tabulation of the assessment ballots required pursuant to subdivision(c),including a statement that the assessment shall not be imposed if the ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment, with ballots weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property. An agency shall give notice by mail at least 45 days prior to the date:of the public hearing upon the proposed assessment. _ (c) Each notice given pursuant to subdivision (b) shall,contain an assessment ballot that includes the agency's address for receipt of the form and a place where the person returning the assessment ballot may indicate his or her.name, a reasonable identification of the parcel, and his or her support or opposition to the proposed assessment. Each.assessrhent ballot shall be signed and either mailed or otherwise delivered to the address indicated on the assessment ballot Regardless of the method of lic delivery, all assessment ballots shall be received at the addressindicated, aced, orh subdivision the � e site 0 timony,in order to be included in the tabulation of a majority p pursuant ssment ballot may be submitted, changed, or .withdrawn prior to..the..conclusi�forthe.pub.ic ireturn .cstimony on the proposed assessment at the hearing.-An agency.may provide 2s emel of the assessment ballot.. ; - (d) At the time,date,and place stated in the notice mailed pursuant to subdivision(b),the agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed assessment..Ai.the public hearing,the agen Asha l cointeresnsider all objections or protests, if any, to the proposed assessment At the.:public hearing, Y person shall be permitted to present written or oral testimony. The public hearing may be continued from time to time. all (e)(1) At the conclusion of the'public_hearing conducted pursuant rtsubdivision (tion to the:proposee agency sh d tabulate the assessment ballots submitted,and not withdrawn,in suppo pP� - The agency may use technological methods of tabulating the assessment ballots,including, ssrsient � but not limited to,punchcard or optically readable(bar-coded)assessment ballots. sic~,_.=. ed parcel'sulinfits an assessmen ord owners of an In the event that more than one of the proposed assessment to be imposed upon thit efidentifie.d areel shall-be aUocated'_ ballot, the amount of the in proportion to the respective record ownership interests or;. the ownerslssr " to each ballot submitted in propo interests are not shown on the record,as established to the satisfaction of the agency by documentation provided by those record owners. opposition to (2) A majority protest exists if the assessment ballots submitted, and not withdrawn, in ini the proposed assessment exceed the assessment ballots subautted, and not withdrawn, in its favor,` weighting those assessment ballots by the amount of the proposed assessment to be imposed upon"the. identified parcel for which each assessment ballot was submitted. ;:' •:r.':: (3) If there is a majority protest against the.imposition of anew assessment, or the extension of an existing assessment, or an increase in an existng assessment, the agency shall not impose; extend, or. increase the assessment 1•.5�'i :c:.,;. a..,.i: : ;.i : 3 'bed in (4) The majority protest Article I-oceIdof the California Constitution descnsubdivision or'of the California:Electioristio er voting for.purposes i_ dded by Stats.1997,c.38(5.13.919), 5,eff.July 1;199'!.). -. ',,.• ci ;i, , i MEETING AGENDA DATE. ITEM # l Em 5anc� m March 2, 1998 TO: Council Colleagues FROM: Dodie Williams SUBJECT: COMMUNICATION ITEM: Business Research Presentation Last Friday the Council received a letter from Bob Schiebelhut requesting an opportunity to receive a presentation from his committee concerning the first phase of a feasibility study evaluating the establishment of a university related research initiative in the community. The committee is anxious to move to a second phase of study, but wishes to first brief"stakeholders" to assure that there is adequate interest and support for continuing with the endeavor. Unfortunately, our meeting of March 17' is already fully scheduled. I will be out of town on April 7te and unable to attend the Council meeting. I would very much like to be present for this presentation,but do not want to delay the effort to our April 21'meeting. Therefore, I would like to ask the Council to agree to receive a presentation from the committee during the lunch hour beginning at 11:30 a.m. on either March 18"or 19'x. /ss CLr M<AO TfR NEY [3u PW..: DI]CHFFPERKIORIG ❑POLIC IR RTC DIR 0 UTIL DIR O PERS - _ y�E I-N�JG,3 S' AGENDA ITEM # miis council mcmoRan6um---- February 25, 1998 TO: City Council FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer/j4--- SUBJECT: March 3" Council Meeting Continuation of Item 5: TRANSFER OF CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE As noted in the staff report for this item, the Cable Communication Policy Act of 1984 requires that the Council take action to approve or deny an ownership transfer within 120 days of receiving a transfer request, unless both parties agree to an extension of time. One extension has been agreed upon relative to the proposed transfer of Sonic Cable Television to Charter Communications, extending the deadline to March 11'x. Earlier this week, after the agenda had already been printed, staff received correspondence from Sonic Cable, Sonicvest, and Charter Communications requesting another extension to March 18, 1998. The purpose of this extension is to continue discussions in an effort to resolve several remaining issues as outlined in the staff report. Therefore, staff recommends a continuance of this item to the March 17" Council meeting. cc: John Dunn JeffJorgensen Wendy George [3 RE BEY ❑PW DIA ERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF ❑M ❑REG DIR @ _ O UT1L DIR 13. 13 PERS DIR