HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07221986 - 2.4 y '
TO: BOA'kD OFy SUPERVISORS
FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: July 15, 1986
SUBJECT: East Bates Avenue Assessment District 1984-2 (Response to 6/3/86 Board Referral )
Specific Requests or Recommendation(s) & Background. & Justification
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Approve recommendation of Public Works Director that petitions from property owners
in the East Bates Avenue Assessment District 1984-2, requesting that future thorough-
fare assessments on their properties be waived for the next 20 years, be denied.
2. Direct Public Works Department to notify each petitioner their petition is denied.
II. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None involving County funds. Denial as recommended would -mean these properties would
still be subject to inclusion in future fee areas which could affect fee income to
County projects.
III, REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND:
On April 9, 1985 the Board of Supervisors, by Resolution 85/170, adopted the Bates
Avenue/North Concord Area of Benefit requiring fees to be paid upon development of
property within the benefit area to be used for road improvements, including but not
limited to portions of Bates Avenue, Port Chicago Highway, and Industrial - Way.
A majority of the property owners within the adopted area of benefit preferred that the
road improvements be constructed immediately, by way of an assessment district,
rather than in a piecemeal fashion spread over several years, as would be the case
under the fee area procedure. Based on their petition the Board of Supervisors, on
July 16, 1985, by Resolution 85/421 approved the boundaries for the East Bates Avenue
Assessment District, 1984-2. Since the road improvements to be done under the
assessment district were identical to those proposed to be done under the area of
benefit, the Board, by Order dated March 11, 1986, waived the area of benefit fee for
all properties included within' the assessment district. The. City of Concord had
previously taken a similar action relative to those assessment district parcels
located within the city limits. Also on March 11, 1986 the engineer of work for the
assessment district, on behalf of various property owners within the district,
requested that owners of real property within the assessment district be relieved of
any additional fees for the life of the assessment district. Since the Board of Super-
visors had already taken an action to relieve these property owners of area of
benefit fees, related to the construction of Bates Avenue, Port Chicago Highway and
Industrial Way, the reason for the request was to prevent the Board of Supervisors
from imposing any other fee such as a Countywide thoroughfare fee on the parcels
within the Bates Avenue Assessment District for the period of 20 years. As a part of
their March 11, 1986 action, the Board of Supervisors denied the request of the
engineer of work.
Continued on attachment: x yes Signature:
Recommendation of County Administrator Recommendation of Board Committee
Approve Other:
Signatures)
Action of Board on: Z Approved as Recommended Other j
Vote f Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
Unanimous (Absent _ ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
Ayes: Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN.
Absent: Abstain: /
Attested rlp 5�
Orig. Div.: Public Works (Admin. ) Ph' )Bat a or
cc: County Administrator Clerk of thV Board of Supervisors
Clerk of the Board and County Administrator
Engineering Services Div.
Road Engineering Div. By_ �. L
Eng. of Work for AD 1984-2 411. ?-weput e
Individual Petitioners
The peti-tion§, which the Board of Supervisors received on June 3, 1986, make a request
identica-1 to that previously requested by the engineer of work and denied by the Board
of Supervisors -March 11, 1986. Specifically, they request that their properties be
relieved of any further levies, assessments, or other liabilities whatsoever for
improvements of streets and roads within the County for the next 20 years.
Denying the petition reaffirms the Board of Supervisor's position of March 11 , 1986.
Denial does not prevent the petitioners from requesting that their properties be
excluded from future fee areas at such time as the Board holds public hearings on the
formation of those areas.
JMW:djh
bo:15.t7