Minutes 1955 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

__ _—.--- __ . __ _ --_ j ANNEXATIOIV CHARGES . In com�liance with the Council�s request for a recommendation on a possible annexation charge� we have studied the methods used by various cities as outlined in the City Manager�s Memorandum of July 13� 1955• In addition� visits were made to the Cities of Hayward and Sunnyvale for a discussion of the basis for chargeg imposed by those cities. After a review of the various methods of arriving at a eharge f or annexation to the city it was felt that study of two approaches merited further consideration. The first to be based on cost of providing water storage and supply in the upper areas� sewer outfalls� additional treatment pl.ant capacity and enlargement of drainage facilities for areas proposed for annexation; and the second to be based on a share of the costs of the capital improvements of the city e�ccluding water� sewer and drainage lines but including city buildings� equipment� parks� etc. ' Consultatian �ras ha.d with Mr. �damson relative to costs of providing water, sewer and i drainage facilities to the western area report of Nrnrember, 1951�. While it is recognized that the figures are not precise nor comprehensive because of the possibility of considerable variation in approach� they do serve as one approach to the proble�. All assumptions for wat.er� sewer and drainage are based on a potential of 5100 lots in an area of approxiraately 2200 acres. The estimated costs for each of the three services (in addition to facilities normally required of the subdivider) for the western area are as follc�rs: l. �later: Cost per residence unit . . . . . . . . . . � 78.00 2. Sewers: Cost per residence unit . . . . . . . . . . � 31�.00 Cost for treatinent - capacity per residence unit . . � 31�•G0 3. Drainage: Cost per residence unit . . . . . . . . . � 50.00 ; Total per residence unit . . . �202.00 I Using the add.ed cost of furnishing water� sewer and drainage facilities as a basis for ' arriving at an annexation e harge� we arrive at a round figure of �200.00 per residence unit. ', The second approach� based on arriving at a fair share per family unit� of the capital improvements of the city, excluding sewer� water and drainsge facilities, was calculated on the present day estimated value of all such capital improvements - They are as follawrs: All equipment, including automotive and mobile equipment� radios and transmitters� road equipment,, fixtures and furniture, � 2,129,409 Al1 land� including parks, city hall site� fire station sites, corpo�ation yard site� sewer plant and reservoir site� etc. � 1,370,591 Total value of city property $ 3,500�000 In order to arrive at the fair share of capital improvements f or newly annexed areas, �re f igure a s f ollo�s: 5100 building site potential � �3�500,000 7.lG000 existing building sites 5100 or� in round figures - �245•00 per building site or residence unit. A simpler and perhaps less comlicated method of arriving at a share of the capital i.mprovements would be as follar�s: 2200 acres potential � �3,500.00 5180 acres in city 2200 or, $675.00 per acre in round figuxes - or using a figures of 4 building sites per acre, a charge of $�168.OQ per lot. Annexation charges� based on a share of the ecisting capital improvements of the city, seems to be a precise and equita.ble approach to the problem and can be readily justi.fied on the basis of newly annexed areas b�yi.ng a share of the stock of a going corporation.