|
�. !)
<br /> that the City Manager check into the matter and report back in thirty days, seconded by
<br /> Councilman Royer and carried.
<br /> Councilman Gran�er we�d to know the condition of the parking lot on the corner of Jefferson
<br /> I and Broadway. It was reported that it has been too wet to complete the lot.
<br /> Councilman Granger cornmented on the November 2�, i955, minutes of the Port Commission where-
<br /> I in it was stated "In view of the above and the fact that the Board had before it no ,�.,�
<br /> , f'ormal request of any nature from the City Council, it was deemed that no action by �
<br /> the Board at this time was required. " Councilman Granger stated that he was oP the
<br /> opinion that the Port Commission should recognize the Council Committee as the
<br /> authorized reprosentatives of the City Council.
<br /> Councilman Granger stated that the Southern Pacific Company is working on the Whipple Avenue �:
<br /> ' crossing. """�
<br /> City Attorney Currie made the following report regarding subdivision and annexation fees :.
<br /> ' At the °November 28th meeting of the Council, this office was requested to �ive
<br /> an opinion re�ardin� so-called annexation fees and subdivision fees.
<br /> The only authority which the City has with regard to subdivision of
<br /> property is as expressed in Sections 11500 and following of the Business
<br /> and Professions Code of �he State of California. This section of the
<br /> code is commonly known as the Subdivision Map Act. lhese sections set
<br /> , out in considerable detail the requirements which a city can rnake with
<br /> ' regard to subdivision of property, and these requirements almost exclu-
<br /> ' sively relate to the desi$n of subdiviaions, such as lot sizes, street
<br /> widths and easements, and with improvements whithin and a d�acent �to the
<br /> subdivision consisting of street work and public utilities necessary
<br /> for the general use of the lot owners in the subdivision and local
<br /> neighborhood traffic, and drainage needs. Therefore, in accordance
<br /> with norma� interpretation of statutes, it would appear doubtful that
<br /> a so-called subdivision charge could be ma:ae which was solely charged
<br /> for the pur.pose of revenue to the city and for the simple privilege of
<br /> subdividing property. It is for thq� reason that this office believes
<br /> ' that such e.harges are of doubtful v8lidity, inasmuch as there has been �
<br /> 'i no traffic provision made for such changes in the Subdivision Map Act.
<br /> I �
<br /> ! Annexation charges are a le�al charge, as they are specifically
<br /> provided for in the annexation statutes which are contained in the
<br /> Government Code of the 5tate of �Calit'ornia. These charges are by
<br /> atatute expressed to b e both the as�umption of assessed bonded
<br /> ' indebtedness and a fixed amount of money to represent the value to
<br /> the territory proposed to be annexed of municipal improvements
<br /> already paid for by city tax payers. These matters, in the event of
<br /> an elction, are placed upon the ballot and are voted upon at the
<br /> time of annexation. In the case of uninhabited territory, the amount is
<br /> fixed b�,- the Council in the same manner, and the bond problem is covered
<br /> by having the property owners sign a consent to taxation.
<br /> !� Gity Manager Rolison reported his findings in regard to annexation charges.
<br /> �
<br /> The report ia as follows:
<br /> �!, Pursuant to the Council� s request, I have contacted Mr. Wise in an
<br /> ' attempt to clar�.fy some of the f�gures contained in his attached report
<br /> ' recommending annexation charges, some of whichwere questioned by ,
<br /> ', Mr. Andres Oddstad, of Oddstad Homes, Inc. °
<br /> The Council will recall that Mr. Wise used two separate approaches in
<br /> �' arriving at an annexation charge ( in addition to the facilities '"""�"
<br /> I normallg required of the subdivider) , as follows:
<br /> r
<br /> � APPROACH NIIMBII� ONE
<br /> I'� (a) Water: Cost per residence unit � 78.00
<br /> i (b) Trunk Sewers: Cost per residence unit 3�.•00
<br /> I (c) Treatment Plant: Cost per residence unit 31}.00
<br /> �� (D) Drainage: Cost per residence unit 0.00
<br /> � � �
<br /> I Total charge p er residence unit �202.00 '
<br /> �
<br /> �' Mr. Oddstad questioned the charge of �78.00 per residence unit for water�
<br /> ' which Mr. Wise had explained was to cover the cost of pumping facilities,
<br /> ' storage and supply lines, etc. , when such facilities are not provided by
<br /> , the subdivider. This method of calculating annexation charges, however,
<br /> was later abandoned.
<br /> , � , ,
<br /> '� APPROACH NUMBER TWO
<br /> ' IIp on final analys.is, Mr. Wise has r c mme ded th e or i� 1 met�iod
<br /> ' of arrivin� at a charge based on a �a�r s�iare of t�ie G�i�y � �nves ment
<br /> _ � �,��.,.��,�����,H��4 �. -� . — --- ��� -,:-.. :.-.. �-- ..�.,�.d„
<br /> .: �a�m _..., _..._ � ,��
<br />
|