Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays ballot process for LMD 43 lighting overlay after residents raise cost and outreach concerns
Summary
Council voted 3–2 to postpone initiating a Proposition 218 mail‑ballot process for a greenbelt lighting overlay in Landscape Maintenance District 43, directing staff to conduct additional community outreach after residents questioned estimated costs, administrative fees and whether taxes would be passed to tenants.
The City Council on Jan. 20 postponed action on a proposed Proposition 218 mail‑ballot to fund replacement of greenbelt lighting in Landscape Maintenance District 43 after neighbors and council members raised concerns about cost estimates, administrative overhead and outreach sufficiency.
Public Works staff asked the council to appropriate $40,000 from the general fund reserve to prepare an engineer’s report and mail ballots for a proposed overlay assessment district that would fund a project estimated in staff materials at roughly $700,000 (project C2407). Anthony Miller, special districts manager, said the project responds to recurrent maintenance requests and that staff had canvassed the neighborhood and held two in-person outreach meetings; he described the overlay as a mechanism to apportion capital and construction costs across benefiting properties.
Residents and neighborhood organizers told council they oppose a new assessment at the proposed level. “I was at the first outreach meeting. The only other LMD resident there besides me was Mr. Garcia,” said Alicia Purcell, who argued that 311 maintenance requests do not equate to support for a multi‑hundred‑thousand‑dollar assessment. Joe Garcia’s written comments raised similar objections about historic estimates, prior LMD balances and administrative charges.
Council members debated alternatives, including a vacation of the easement or transferring maintenance responsibility to adjacent property owners. Councilman Starr suggested private ownership of the path might shift costs away from a city assessment; staff cautioned that vacations can create access and legal complications.
Mayor Pro Tem moved to postpone the item and directed staff to return with additional neighborhood outreach; Councilwoman Perez seconded. The motion carried 3–2. Councilmembers who supported postponement said they wanted clearer community engagement before committing public funds; others argued that a mail-ballot lets property owners decide directly.
Staff said an updated outreach report and any revised engineer’s estimate would be returned for council consideration; if the council subsequently approves the engineer’s report and directs balloting, the Proposition 218 process would be mail-ballot with weighted votes by property owners and a majority (more yes than no) required for approval.
The council did not adopt the overlay or the appropriation at the Jan. 20 meeting; no ballots were mailed pending the follow-up outreach and an updated staff report.
