1980 REG MTG MIN FEB 5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Discussion then followed regarding the assessment districts, from the first 76-1 36 5 to the present, 78-2, and the concerns of various property owners regarding the assessments being made. Mr. Ashley stated he was not satisfied with the response to his questions and, there- fore, he would like to have his objection recorded. Mr. Brown said he would like to mention that the City has, under these proceedings and the other projects as mentioned by Mr. Villelli, made a pledge. The assess- ment district is within the Project Area of the Redevelopment Agency, and the City has, by Ordinance, pledged the increments that acrue on any parcel to be utilized as a credit against their debt service, so it is very likely, as was stated, that although the property owner has an estimated assessment figure, he will be receiv- ing assistance from the City as monies are earned on that parcel from the incre- ment under the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Brown stated he does not know exactly how those figures will relate to each individual assessment, however, one can con- tact the City's Finance Department and there should be some history that will show how incremental tax money, Redevelopment proceeds, are being utilized to assist the payment of the debt service on all parcels within the assessment district boundaries. Mr. Brown then gave each Council Member a copy of Exhibit "A", which shows. how the (� assessment will be modified from the original and preliminary approval. Mr. John Doyle, of Stone and Youngberg, stated he would like to inform the property Q owners of the condominiums that regarding the prior 1911 Act Assessment Bonds, that Q everyone is so concerned about, that was paid - there are no prior 1911 Act Bonds on any of the condominiums in the Colton project. Mr. Doyle said those were paid, Q they are paid by the developer, there are no prior 1911 Act liens against any of those properties of the condominiums. Mayor Gonzales asked if anyone desired to make additional comments on this matter. Moved by Councilwoman Cisneros, seconded by Councilman Hayes, to terminate the Public Hearing. Unanimous vote. Mr. Brown then reviewed in detail four resolutions for consideration and approval, which were adopted as follows: Moved by Councilwoman Cisneros, seconded by Councilman Hayes, to approve Resolution No. 3974. Unanimous vote. RESOLUTION NO. 3974 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ORDERING CHANGES AND MODIFICA- TIONS IN PROCEEDINGS AND ASSESSMENTS IN AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE "MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 191311, BEING DIVISION 12 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Moved by Councilman Hayes, seconded by Councilwoman Cisneros, to approve Resolution No. 3975. Unanimous vote. RESOLUTION NO. 3975 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OVERRULING AND DENYING PROTESTS AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. Moved by Mayor Gonzales, seconded by Councilman Temby, to approve Resolution No. 3976. Unanimous vote. RESOLUTION NO. 3976 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AND PROVIDING FOR CON- TRIBUTION TO PAY CERTAIN COSTS AND EXPENSES IN AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. Moved by Councilwoman Cisneros, seconded by Councilman Temby, to approve Resolution No. 3977. Unanimous vote. RESOLUTION NO. 3977 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT, ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS MADE, TOGETHER WITH APPURTENANCES, AND APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT. Mr. Brown then advised that the next two resolutions relate to the eminent domain proceedings, the first one being the formal action of the City Council ordering the eminent domain proceedings, which is the subject matter of the public hear- ing this evening, the second of the two public hearings. It is still necessary to obtain certain easements in order to accomplish the works of improvements. Mr. Brown stated this would be Resolution No. 3978. Moved by Councilwoman Cisneros, seconded by Councilman Hayes, to approve Resolution No. 3978. FEB 5 1980