Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Westwood Swanson Park Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Westwood residents oppose $1,092.98-per-unit assessment; mailed-ballot protest defeats proposed Swanson Park upgrade
Summary
During a public hearing, Westwood residents argued the proposed special assessment would be unfair to households directly facing Swanson Park; mailed ballots were counted live and showed a majority protest, 54 no to 6 yes, so the proposed assessment did not pass. Council continued the item to August 17 to improve notice and provide itemized expenses.
A mailed-ballot protest by Westwood property owners defeated a proposed special assessment to fund Swanson Park improvements after residents said the cost and noticing were unfair.
Debbie and Roy Fortino, Westwood residents who spoke at the hearing, told the council their portion of the landscape and lighting district would rise "from $300 a year to $1,000 a year," saying they had not been given prior notice about the new proposal and that many adjacent properties receive the park’s benefits without paying into the district. "I don't want to pay $1,000 a year to go over there and shoot a basket or two," the Fortinos said.
Why it matters: the proposal would have funded roughly $266,580 in capital improvements at Swanson Park spread over fiscal years 2026–27 and 2027–28. Under the mailed-ballot protest process required by Proposition 218, an assessment fails if a majority of returned ballots are opposed; council staff recessed to count ballots live and reported 54 'no' to 6 'yes.' City Manager (speaker 6) read the informal tally and said the mailed ballot protest meant the residents’ measure did not pass at the property-owner level.
City staff and the city attorney explained technical details to residents. The consultant and staff told council the proposal included a temporary two‑year assessment that would become a new legal maximum for that period, then revert to the prior maximum with the routine 3% annual escalator thereafter. Several residents said the ballot and packet language did not make the temporary nature of the increase sufficiently clear, and one resident questioned whether the ballot sponsor was a property owner; the city attorney confirmed ballots are sent to registered property owners per the Prop 218 process.
Resident concerns included equity and safety. Cindy Cruz, a neighbor, said she opposes the assessment because she is on a fixed income and worries about nighttime noise and safety near her home; staff and the police chief noted that city parks close at dusk.
What happens next: staff said they will send an itemized expense report for each district and re-notice the hearing. The council formally continued the public hearing to the August 17 meeting to give residents time to review updated materials and correct noticing issues.
Claims and responses: some speakers contended the ballot sponsor might not be a property owner and urged that ballots be discarded; the city attorney responded that ballots are issued to registered owners. Speaker 14 (Cody Fowler) asserted ballots were "null and void" if returned by nonowners; staff maintained the mailed‑ballot procedure under Prop 218 governs validity.
The council took no final action to impose the assessment following the ballot count; the matter is continued to Aug. 17 for additional notice and documentation.
