BOOK 26_1955-11-28 to 1957-06-17

Browse Search

16 thate,the City Manager check into the matter and report back in thirty days, seconded by Councilman Royer and carried. Councilman Granger wanted to know the condition of the parking lot on the corner of Jefferson and Broadway. It was reported that it has been too wet to complete the lot. Councilman Granger commented on the November 28, 1955, minutes of the Port Commission where- in it was stated "In view of the above and the fact that the Board had before it no formal request of any nature from the City Council, it was deemed that no action by the Board at this time was required.' Councilman Granger stated that he was of the opinion that the Port Commission should recognize the Council Committee as the authorized reprosentatives of the City Council, Councilman Granger stated that the Southern Pacific Company is working on the Whipple Avenue crossing. City Attorney Currie made the following report regarding subdivision and annexation fees: At the`November 28th meeting of the Council, this office was requested to give an opinion regarding so-called annexation_ fees and subdivision fees. The only authority which the City has with regard to subdivision of property is as expressed in Sections 11500 and following of the Business and Professions Code of the State of California. This section of the code is commonly known as the Subdivision Map Act. These sections set out in considerable detail the requirements which a city can make with regard to subdivision of property, and these requirements almost exclu- sively relate to the design of subdivisions, such as lot sizes, street widths and easements, and with improvements whithin and adjacent'to the subdivision consisting of street work and public utilities necessary for the general use of the lot owners in the subdivision and local neighborhood traffic, and drainage needs. Therefore, in accordance with normal interpretation of statutes, it would appear doubtful that a so-called subdivision charge could be made which was solely charged for the purpose of revenue to the city and for the simple privilege of subdividing property. It is for thy{ reason that this office believes that such charges are of doubtful validity, inasmuch as there has been no traffic provision made for such changes in the Subdivision Map Act. Annexation charges are a legal charge, as they are specifically provided for in the annexation statutes which are contained in the Government Code of the State of'California. These charges are by statute expressed to be both the assumption of assessed bonded indebtedness and a fixed amount of money to represent the value to the territory proposed to be annexed of municipal improvements already paid for by city tax payers. These matters, in the event of an elction, are placed upon the'ballot and are voted upon at the time of annexation. In the case of uninhabited territory, the amount is fixed by the Council in the same manner, and the bond problem is covered •by having the property owners sign a consent to taxation. City Manager Rolison reported his findings in regard to annexation charges. The report is as follows: Pursuant to the Council's request, I have contacted Mr. Wise in an attempt to clarify some of the figures contained in his attached report recommending annexation charges, some of which were questioned by Mr. Andres Oddstad, of Oddstad Homes, Inc. The Council will recall that•Mr. Wise used two separate approaches in arriving at an annexation charge (in addition to the facilities normally required of the subdivider), as follows: APPROACH NUMBER ONE (a) Water: Cost per residence unit 78.00 (b) Trunk'Sewers: Cost per residence unit 34.00 (c) Treatment Plant: Cost per residence unit 34.00 (D) Drainage: Cost per residence unit 0.00 Total charge per residence unit $202.00 Mr. Oddstad questioned the charge of 678.00 per residence unit for water, which Mr. Wise had explained was to cover the cost of pumping facilities, storage and supply lines, etc., when such facilities are not provided by the subdivider. This method of calculating annexation charges, however, was later abandoned. • APPROACH NUMBER TWO Up on final analysis, Mr. Wise has r c mme ded the or I 1 met od o�f arriving at a charge based on a a�r sure of t ie si y �nves went 9 �i