The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBOARD MINUTES 02-27-56 L8ö MIIU!.ES OF AN ADJOtmNED BEGULAR MEETING OF THE DI sm CT :BOARP . cE:rmw:. CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT HELD FEBRUARY 27, 1959 The Distric.t Board of Central Contra Costa Sani tery District convened in an Adjourned Regular Session at i ts regular place 9f . meeting' ~oca~ed at 1822 lit. Diablo :Boulevard, City of Walnut Cree\t, County of Contra Costa, State of California, on 1ebruary 'Zl, 1956, at 8100 0 'cloçk P.M. - The meeting was called to order ~ President Roemer. PRESENT: Members I ABSENT: Member: I. BOLL Cn.T. J'1sher, Spiegl, Salfingere and Roemer Mi tchell II. APPROVAL OF MINU'Ei:S It was moved ~ Member Salfingere, seconded by Member Spiegl, that the Minutes of the meeting of February 16. 1956, be appl'OTed as presented. Carried by the following vote I AYES: Members: NOES: Members: ABSENT: Member: None. !'leher, Spiegl, Salfingere and Roemer Bone )I, tahell III. APPROVAL OF :BILLS IV. HEARl NGS LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRIC~ NO. ~. ASSJlSSlqJNT. COJftINUED President Roemer stated that this ~s the continued Bearing for Local Improvement District No. 30 to review the Directors' field work and to make a final determination of the assessments. President Roemer asked if aDyone in the audience wished to be heard. Mr. Borsl~Y. owner of original assessment parcël. Nos. 30-191-1 and 30-191-2, asked what determination was made concerning his two assessments. It was moved by Member Spiegl, seconded b7 Member nsher, that the two parcels be combined into one. Carried by the following vote I AYES: Members: NOES : Members: .A!SJmT: Member: !'leher, Spiegl, Salf1ngere and. Roemer None Mitchell Mrs. Harris. owner of assessment parcels Nos. 30-180-41 and 30-180-42, protested two assessments because of one tax bill. It was moved by Member lisher, seconded by Member Spiegl, that the protest of Mrs. Barris be denied. Carried by the following vote: AYES: Members: NOES: Members: ABSENT: Member: !'lsher, Spiegl, Salfingere and :Roemer None Mitchell Later, it was moved by Meaher Sp1egl, seconded by Member Fisher, 'that the assessment protest of ]Irs. Barris be re-examined and that Mr. Borstkotte, Jlngineer for Local Improvement District No. 30, be instructed to determine what appeared on the last Count1 assessment roll and, if shown as one single described parcel, the two parcels be combined into one. Carried by the following vote: AYEs: Members: NOES: Members: A:BSEft: Member: !'lsher, Spiegl, Salfingere and Roemer None Mi tchell 2'7 56 02 ....... ~ " ...... .x 87 Mr. Mazee. owner of assessment parcels Nos. 30-91-8, 30-91-9, 30-92-1, JO-92-2,~9J-I and JO-9J-2, asked what determination had been made concerning hi s assessments.- It was moved by Member Salfingere, seconded by Member Spiegl, the.t the six parcels be combined into one. Carried by the following vote: AYEs: NOES: ABSENT: ~ Members: Members: Member: lisher. Spiegl. Sa1fingere and Roemer Bone Mi tchell Mr. Bicn.,,- owner of asses8JDent parcels Bos. JO-194-J2 and JO-194-33. asked what determination had been made concerning his assessments. . It was moved by Member Fisher. seconded by Member, Spiegl. that the two parcels be combined into one. Carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: A:BSENT: Members: Members: Member: J'isher, Spieg1, Salfingere and Roemer Bone Mitchell Mr. Zucco protested the six assessments on the property owned by his family. After discussion. i t was moved by Member Spiegl, seconded by Member Fisher. that the request for combining the parcels into a single un1 t be . denied, that parcels Bos. 30-194-2 and 30-l94-J be combined into one parcel, that parcels Bos. JO-194-4 and JO-194-7 be combined into one parcel. and that parcel Nos. JO-194-5 and 30-194-6 be combined into one parcel. Carried by the following vote: AYES: mEa : .&:BSENT : Members: Members: Member: lisher, Spieg1, Salfingere and Roemer None Mitchell ~ JO-17~S ~::;s~::e~~f t::::s:::::~~~::s Nos. 30-171-7, JO-17l-l7 and It was moved by Member Salfingere. seconded by Member Spiegl. that the protest of Mrs. Kuss be denied. Carried by the following vote: AYES: BOES : ABSENT: Members: Members: Member: Fisher, Spieg1. Salfingere and Roemer Bone Mitchell Mrs. luss asked what determination had been made concerning the Cordell assessment parcels Nos. 30-170-1, 30-171-6 and 30-171-10. It was moved by Member lisher, seconded by Member Spiegl. that the Cordell protest be denied. Carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES : ABSENT : Members: fisher, Spiegl, Salfingere and Roemer Members: Bone Member: Mitchell Mrs. Lester protested the amount of her assessment Bo. 30-161-2. It was moved by Member Spiegl, seconded by Member Fisher. that the protest of Mrs. Lester be denied. Carried by the following vote: AYES: IOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Member: Fisher, Spiegl, Salfingere and Roemer Bone Mitchell Mr. Gleim. owner of assessment parcels Nos. 30-194-2J and Jo-l94-24, protested receiving two assessments althou&h he rece~ved two tax bills. It was moved by Member Fisher, seconded by Member ~iegl, that the protest of. Mr. Gleim be denied. Carried by the follow111€ vote: AYES: NOES: .A:BSENT: Members: J'isher, Spiegl, Salfingere and Boemer Members: Bone Member: . Mitchell 02 27 56 188 . Mrs. Anderson. owner of assessment parcel No. 30-100-3'1. protested. being assessed because of being 2t miles awq from the sewer. . It was moved by Member Spiegl. seconded by Member J'1sher. that the protest of Mrs. Anderson be denied. Carried by the following vote: AYES: Members: NOES: Members: AESENT: Member: fisher. Spiegl. Salfingere and Roemer None Mitchell During the continued review of the assessments. Mr. Borstkotte. Engineer for Local Improvement District 1'0. '0. was instructed to recheck asses_ent parcels Nos. 30-119-5 and 30-119-6 1n the field and. if it show asa single use. to leave i t combined as one as ses smen t. a therwi se to ~ i t to two, as originally determined. ~ lhe :Board determined that Mr. l'eJedly, Counsel for the District. be instructed to clarify the letter received from Parkhills Estates, Inc~ !he reQuest was for '10 un! ts of assessment on parcel No. 30-16'1-1. Mr. I'ejedly to advise them 'tv letter that the lump sum amount for '10 assessments would be distributed as Ii units for the subdivided parcels,."hich were within 600 feet of 1õhe sewer line installed under Local Impro'V88ent District 1'0. 30 proceedings. and as single uni ts for those beyond. When the lump sum is e%hsusted. additional units to be charged on the same basis. Member Spiegl abstained from discussion when parcels Nos. 30-39-1 and 30-39-14. owned by Mr. Mather ton. were discussed. After completing the review. Mr. Nejedly, Counsel for the DiBtrlct. stated that the resolution confirming the assessment and overrulinc protests was prepared in rough form and would be completed, after final determination of the :Board. !1'h.e Hearing ~s continued to the March 1. 1956. meetibg for determination. V. OLD :BUSIDSS None. VI . DPORTS ~ DISTRICT MANAGER COEDJllMNATION I'J' EASDOIINT Mr. Borstkotte. District Manager. requested authority to condemn the Shepherd. easement required for the Storm Water Overflow Job. pSOLUT~ON NO. 9'31. .m2i.IZING CONDlpATION Or THE S~RD PARQ!.L lOR THE sro. WATER. O'fERJlLOW JaB It was moved by Member Spiegl, seconded by Member Fisher, that :Resolution No. 93., be adopted. Carried by the following vote: AYES: Members: :risher, Spiegl. Salfingere and Roemer NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Member: Mitchell COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT None. VII. nw BUSINESS None. VIII . ADJOU1U3fENT ~ At 12:16 o'clock A.M., :rebruar,. 28, 1956, the meeting was adjourned by President Roemer to March 1,1956. .. ~ ¡;¿ .I~ "- of the District :Board at Contra Costa Sani tal7 District ot Costa County, State of California COUNTERSIGmID: ~~~ Central Contra Costa San1 tary District of Contra Costa County. State of California 02 2tt " ,., .', .- -", .~;' \....