HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESO 8004RESOLUTION NO. 8004
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE MAIL BALLOT
ELECTION RELATING TO STORM DRAINAGE FEES HELD ON
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2000 a mail ballot election
was duly held in the City of Palo Alto pursuant to Article XIII
D (6) and the implementing legislation and procedures adopted by
the Council pursuant thereto, for the purpose of submitting a
proposed increase in the storm drainage fees to owners of real
property subject to the fees, in the form set forth below:
City of Palo Alto
Official Property Owner Ballot
Sh.all the proposed storm drain utility fee Yes
increase, including the inflation adjustment No
index, be approved?
WHEREAS, due and legal notice of the mail ballot
election was given as required by law; and
WHEREAS, ballots were accepted until 8:00 p.m. on the
evening of September 26, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has conducted a complete and
official canvass of the returns of the election; and
WHEREAS, Article III, Section 4 of the Charter of the
City of Palo Alto requires the Council to act as the canvassing
board to canvass the results of City elections; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2000, the Council of the City of
Palo Alto met at its usual place of meeting, canvassed the
returns of the mail ballot election and declared the results
thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto
does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council finds and declares that:
a. A mail ballot election by owners ·of property
subject to the storm drainage fee was duly and regularly held on
September 26, 2000, in accordance with Article XIII D (6) of the
California Constitution, Section 4000 of the California
001004 cl 0032389 1
Elections Code, Ordinance No. 4647, Resolution No. 7974 and
Resolution No. 7996.
b. The total number of votes cast in the City at
said election was 9673 (49.82% turnout);
c. The total number of votes given and cast for the
proposed fee increase at said election was as follows:
YES 3568
NO 6105
TOTAL 9673
SECTION 2. The Council finds that this is not a
project under the California Environmental Quality Act and,
therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: October 10, 2000
AYES:
NOES:
BEECHAM, BURCH,
MOSSAR, OJAKIAN
ABSENT: KNISS
ABSTENTIONS:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~.__. uJ) ~R-
Senior Asst. City Attorney
001004 cl 0032389
EAKINS, FAZZINO, KLEINBERG, LYTLE,
APPROVED:-~ ¥~.~-
~
2