Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD MINUTES 11-07-57 .J..-Uv MIN~TES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DISTRICT BOARD CEN'mAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT HELD NOVEMBER 7, 1957 ,The District Board of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District convened in a Regular Session at its regular place of meeting located at 1250 Springbrook Road, Walnut Creek, County of Contra Costa, State of California, on November 7, 1957, at 8:00 o'clock P.M. In the absence of President Fisher, Member Mitchell called the meeting to order. I. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Members: Mitchell and Spieg1 AßSF.NT: Members: Fisher, Roemer and Sa1fingere Member Mitchell was unanimously elected President Pro Tem. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Due to lack of a quorum, approval of the Minutes of ,the meeting of October 17, 1957, was continued to the next meeting. III. APPROVAL OF BILLS Due to lack of a quorum, approval of bills was continued to the next meeting. IV. HEARINGS LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 34, ASSESSMENTS President Pro Tem Mitchell explained that, due to the lack of qUQrU!!l, the Board Members would not be able to make any decisions relative to the assessments and work in Local Improvement District No. 34. President Pro Tem Mitchell stated that this was the time when all written protests should be filed with the District. He further stated that the present Board Members would listen to comments from the ,floor and that the Hearing would be continued to the next meeting for further comments and review of the protests filed with the District. President Pro Tern Mitchell stated that the Board Members present would listen to comments at this time from those who wished to be heard. Mr. Mannon and Mr. Barrows asked for an explanation of the assessment procedu re. Mr. Horstkotte, District Manager, explained the proce~ure for assessing the properties based upon the contract cost, incidental expenses, and zoning along with the character of development in the area. Mr. Pruden asked for an explanation of partial assessments and Mr. Horstkotte replied. Mr. Barrows stated that he felt that some of the larger parcels were not assessed a fair share of the cost, giving the Garãner parcel as an example, and protested the am('unt of the assessment. Mrs. Se1bach requested two units of assessment on her property. Mr. Reed asked if the number of assessments limited the number of sites for a parcel of property. It was explained that this was a Planning Commission problem and not related to the assessment on a parcel of property. 11 07 57 ~.i50 Mr. McCready stated there is a sewer within 30 feet of his property and, asked if he could connect to that sewer rather than the sewer in Local Improvement District No. 34. Member Spi egl asked ¡"'Ir. McCready whether he owned the property when the other Local Improvement. District was formect, and stated there had been a public hearing when boundaries are determined and if people want to be outside the boundaries, they are excluded. Mr. Horstkotte explained that, although the McCready property is not included in Local Improvement District No. 23, connection can be made to either sewer but the assessment in Local Improvement District No. 34 will still be applicable. Mr. Bar rows asked if the re-appraisal would again be dependent upon Mr. Horstkotte's judgement and stated he would like to have the opportunity to engage an engineer. Mr. Horstkotte replied that the Board will review the assessments in and he would explain his reasons for the distribution of the assessments. further stated that the Board Members can change the assessments, but, if agree with his findings, the assessments will stand. the field He they Member Spiegl told Mr. Barrows that he could bring in an engineer if he wished and informed him that thre,¿, of the Board Members are engineers. ~ ! Mr. Scott stated he had another property that could be fed by gravity if he could purchase additional land to make it a buildable site. Mr. Horstkotte explained that the property must be considered in i ts pres~nt ownership and, therefore, the zero assessment. Mr. Chase stated he believed the number of building sites should determine the assessments and suggested that an independent engineer look at the property. President Pro Tem Mitchell told Mr. Chase that he had the right to give logical reasons why the engineering is in error. Mr. Tess stated that people withQut direct service had a better deal than those close to the lines. Mr. Horstlcotte explained that prope rties once removed, we re conside rabl y upgrade from other properties and that hand 'work might be required for instal1ati"'lns, thereby increasing the cost of the sewers. Member Spiegl asked for specific instances where the cost of sewering woulr! be less than the amount of the assessment. Mr. HorstkotÙ>, said that' all the discussion leads tf\ the cr:-nclusinn that the people want the assessments based on square footage. President Pro Tem Mitchell stated the people are qu~stinning the correctness of the equality of costs. Mr. Christian asked if written protests would be discussed at the next meeting and stated that many of the problems brought up now will have to be discussed at the next meeting. Mrs. Borden asked if 1* acres are sold later would an additional assessment have to be paid. Mr. Horstkotte replied that there would be no additional assessment. Mr. Gloy requested information pertaining to his assessment. Mr. Horstkotte explained the manner of assessing his prope rty. Member Spiegl explained zoning sizes and requirements. Mr. Horstkotte stated the protest wou1c1 be reviewed in the field. Mr. Manuel said he had already subdivided his property and has been assessed accordingly. Mr. Tess said all the remarks seemec! to tenci toward asses~ing,more assessment , , units for more building sites. 11 07 57 1,t;'1 Member Spiegl replied that this would have the consideration ,of the Board. Mr. Johannesol1 asked when he will have to connect to the sewers. President Pro Tem Mitchell explained that, he would not have to connect unless the Health Officer requires it. He also explained District connection fees. Mrs. Read requested that a survey be made on specific cases mentioned and on many other properties not mentioned. Member Spiegl asked if she had any specific properties in mind. Mrs. Read said she was thinking about smaller properties. President Pro Tem Mitchell ::-.tated the Board will review wi th Mr. Horstkotte the policy of assessing 25 percent to properties removed from immediate service. Mr. Barrows stated that the Board should review the assessments on the Macomber and Bowron properties. Mr. Shurtleff requested that the entire assessment be reviewed. President Pro Tem Mitchell and Member Spiegl stated that the questionable properties would be reviewed in the field. Written protests were received from the following: Roy \"i. Tess R. '::. Spott OWen S. Di bbe rn Leola B. Hughes John B. Barchfie1d Earl A. Norton Paul A. Wylie Robert L. Christian Bunton F. Barrows A. A. Knudsen E. H. Burkett Latham C. Eastman Hel~ne A. Klement R. Steiner Dana G. Leavitt E. A. Bonfield P. W. Kohlhaas E. A. Shurtleff George J. Cu1p Reed A. Chase Samuel W. Scott Henry F. G1oy Dorothy G. Selbach ,The Hearing on Local Improvement District No. 34 assessments was continued to November 14, 1957. ' REMAINDER OF TIlE AGENDA CONTINUED TO THE NEXT MEETING. ADJOURNMENT At 10:05 o':::lock P.M., the meeting was adjourned by President Pro Tem Mitchell to November l4, 1957. President Pr Central Cont Contra Costa the District Board of Sanitary District of State of California COFNTERSIGNED: " , /---::,.,:',; '~~ i/-~-:.,-..-r:.-~','-'..- ,.- S~X~ldLY of the District Board of Central' Contra Costa Sanitary District of Contra Costa, County, State of California '.<¡,j lí~ 1. 07 .;~ .7"'1 i). ,