HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08061985 - X.7 THE BOARD` OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this 'Order on August 6, 1985 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers , Schroder , McPeak , Torlakson, and Fanden
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: City of San Ramon letter regarding County Service Area R-7
On 'recommendation of Supervisor Schroder , IT IS BY THE
BOARD ORDERED , that the letter from the City of San Ramon regarding
dissolution and transfer of assets of County Service Area R-7 is
referred to the County Administrator for response .
hereby certify thai?b+;:- +,< •{� C?r�nr:^L1Rt1�
an action tat<on andr;es u6 cil the rAfruieS of :#:A
Board of Suparvisc:s on the date shovin. i
ATTESTUD: "Ald 6 , - 9.S
PHIL BATCHEOMP, C€sri; si s3 ? Duard
of Supervisors and County Administrator
Deputy
By il..l t )a�- -�' ,
cc: County Administrator
City of San Ramon
City of San Ramon
2222 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, California 94583
(415) 866-1400
July 26 , 1985
Robert I . Schroder
Supervisor, District 3
Contra Costa County
315 Diablo Road, "-Suite "111
Danville, CA 94526,,1
Subject : County Service' Area R-7; Dissolution/Transfer
of Twin Creeks- Park Property '._
Dear Supervisor Schroder.,:,,,
We have received a letter da`ted 'June 28 , 1985 from the County
Administrator ' s Office,, ttempting to- resolve our differences
regarding the distribution of the R-7< assets . Needless to..' say,
we are.:-,-,extremely disappointed ,thatthere has been no progress
in ameliorating the past ine,quitt�ie"s`
,
While the ;City Council is, most anxious to resolve ;,this matter, it
is felt, that it would be, derelict, in ---its ,;duty to:; the citizens of
San Ramon if it did riot make 'another effort "to " secure a more"
equitable resolution. ,` It is. for.`tYis reason;"that ,we are bringing
this matter to your' attention
As we see, it , the problem stems; 'f.rom th`e County staff ' s failure to
recognize",°;the dissolution ,of R 7,.,,as of ."July 1 , 1982 as required by
law. There. is no doubt _..that=,had'__th`is., been ,done, and the assets
distributed"."-as of 'that date, according t6" the assessed value, we
would not abw. be at the impasse which requires your intervention .
In a letter dated August 11 1983 ,,the' City pointed,;out 'that in
all fairness :
1 ) The R-7 account should be restructured as of June 30 , 1982 .
2 ) That any R-7 funds spent i
snce that time in Danville should be
charged against the funds that accrued to the service area from
sources within the corporate limits of Danville and Danville ' s
share of the unencumbered R-7 funds as of June 30 , 1982; and
that Danville not share in the unincumbered fund balance of
June ,30 , 1983 .
Y M
Robert I . Schroder July 26 , 1985
Page 2
However, in the interest of settling this matter, the City proposed
to settle for just Danville not participating in the distribution
of the unencumbered R-7 funds as of June 30 , 1983 . In addition, it
was pointed out that the 1982/83 expenditures on behalf of Danville
exceeded the R-7 revenues from Danville by $85 , 757 .
Now, two years later, the matter is still unresolved and the City of
San Ramon is once again willing to make reasonable concessions to
settle this complex problem; however, there is a point which it
cannot in , all fairness to the citizens of San Ramon, proceed. The
only issue that has been resolved to this date is the waiving of the
penalty charges, which have been required because of "the inability
to consumate the early transfer of the Twin Creeks property to the
City" as stated in the June 28 , 1985 memo from County staff. Accord-
ingly, the City' s major concerns are still centered around:
1 ) The inconsistent accounting methods used by County staff in
addressing County Service Area R-7 revenue, expenditures and
the distribution of enencumbered funds in relation to the
incorporation of the City of Danville and the City of San Ramon.
To cite an example, it is our position that the lien on the
Twin Creeks park property, as a result of tax assessments ,
should have been distributed against the R-7 account using the
same percentages outlined for the 1983/84 unencumbered fund
balance distribution. We do agree with the office of the
County Auditor-Controller that the interest amount should be
mitigated by a reduction of approximately 80% to 85% if
payment is made around July 1, 1985 .
2 ) The crediting of interest accrued on the funds that were due
the City of San Ramon from R-7 at the time of incorporation
on July 1, 1983 . Interest accrued on this amount to date
should be credited to the City of San Ramon upon transfer of
the funds to the City.
Subsequent to the San Ramon City Council meeting of Julv 23 , 1985 ,
at which staff provided an update on the ongoing negotiations which
generated considerable discussion by the council on the lack of
progress , we have been in contact with County staff and reasonable
suggestions for resolution of specific issues have been discussed.
As stated previously, we are most anxious to resolve this matter
and request that a meeting be scheduled at your earliest possible
convenience to discuss the equitable resolution of the issues
impeding the consummation of this transaction. The matter is to be
brought back before the Council on August 13, 1985, therefore it
is imperative that we get together prior to this date.
Cordially,
L�
Wayn B,nnett
Vice Mayor
WB: ss