HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07231996 - SD6 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: Victor J.Westman, County Counsel Costa
County
DATE: July 23 , 1996
SUBJECT: Zone 5 Formation and Approving Confirmation of Final
Engineer's Report, Diagram and Assessments for Zone 5 of
Countywide Landscape District AD 1`979-3 (LL-2) and
Levying Annual Assessments to be Placed on the Tax Rolls
for Fiscal Year 1997-98 subject to Zone 5 Voter Enactment.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Confirm the formation of Zone 5 within Landscape District AD 1979-3 (LL-2).
2. Adopt Resolution 96/ concerning the above Subject and authorizing an election within Zone 5.
3. Approve ballot proposition.
4. Direct the County Clerk(Elections Division) to conduct the election required by Resolution 96/_.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Public Works Department's June 7, 1996 estimate was$1,010 for a November 5, 1996 Zone 5
election. Should Zone 5 voters approve the resolution, the $1,010 election cost could be charged to Zone 5 funds when
available.
BACKGROUND/REASONS
On June 18, 1996 the Board conducted its hearings on the proposed annual assessments for Countywide
Landscape District AD 1979-3 (LL-2) but at that time declined taking final action on two proposed new zone assessments
for Zones 5(Pacheco) and Zone 66 (El Sobrante). Concerning Zone 66 the Board indicated its intent to place before the
voters of the November 5, 1996 election a possible advisory ballot measure and directed County Counsel to report to the
Board with appropriate documentation for its consideration concerning a November 5, 1996 election on proposed Zone 66
benefit assessments. It is now proposed that whatever election procedure is adopted for Zone 66, should similarly be
utilized for Zone 5 (Pacheco).
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE: ,
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON July 23; 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED
OTHER X
John Wolfe , Contra Costa-.Taxpayers Association, 820 Main Street ,
Martinez , commented on the proposed election for voter consideration of
the Zone 5 formation and assessments ;
Following testimony and Board discussion,
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above matter is continued to
August 6 , 1996 in the Board ' s chambers .
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
UNANIMOUS_x ENTERED N THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
NOES: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ABSENT: ATTESTED July 23, 1996
ABSTAIN: PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR
cc: County Clerk (Elections Division) B4PY ,
Public Works (Skip Epperly) D
Auditor-Controller
Assessor
County Counsel
SDI
Streets and Highways Code section 22594(a) provides that at the conclusion of the assessment hearing and with no
majority protest having been filed, the Board of Supervisors may adopt a resolution ordering the improvements and
formation of the assessment.district zone and confirming the diagram assessment, In this regard it is recommended that
the Board consider adopting the attached resolution which would propose to the Zone 5 voters at the November election a
referendum as to whether the subject resolution should be approved and enacted to allow Zone 5 benefit assessments
commencing with the 1997-98 fiscal year. Should the voters not approve the resolution and its enactment then the Board
would lose complete jurisdiction concerning Zone 5 proceedings and the hearings conducted during June of 1966. In other
words, it would be necessary to initiate and notice new proceedings should this matter be again considered.
The state wide initiative entitled "Right to Vote on Taxes Act'which will appear on the November 5, 1996 ballot would,
if adopted, require that for annual assessment continued after July 1, 1997 the procedure set forth in that initiative would
have to first be followed with certain specified exceptions. Sec. 5, subsection (d) of the said initiative would provide an
exception for any assessment which previously which received majority voter approval from the voters voting in an election
on the issue of the assessment. It would appear that the above proposed voter referendum adoption procedure set forth in
the subject resolution would be an election procedure sufficient to satisfy the exception provisions of said subsection (d).
H:\DFOTI\BD-ORDER\REPT-ZN5.WPD
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Resolution on July 23, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SUBJECT: Resolution Confirming Final ) RESOLUTION NO. 96/
Engineer's Report, Diagram )
and Assessments for County- )
wide Landscape District )
AD 1979-3 (LL-2) and Levying )
Annual Assessments to be )
Placed on the Tax Rolls for )
Fiscal Year 1997-98 subject )
to Zone 5 Voter Enactment. )
The Board,of Supervisors of Contra Costa County Hereby Resolves,
Determines, Orders and Directs:
1. On April 23, 1996 the formation of Landscaping assessment Zone 5
(Pacheco area) was approved.
2. On April 16, 1996, the Public Works Director, Engineer of Work for
Countywide Landscape District AD 1979-3 (LL-2), filed an annual report, and the Board
adopted its Resolution of Intention to levy and collect assessments within then propose
Assessment District Zone 5, the public hearings were held at 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday,
June 5 and 11, 1996, in the Chambers of the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Contra Costa, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California 94553.
Notice of the hearings was given in the time and manner required by law.
3. At the public hearings, the Board afforded to every interested person an
opportunity to make a protest to the annual report and proposed Zone 5 assessments
either in writing or orally, and the Board has considered each protest. The Board
hereby over rules each of these protests and finds that the protest against the proposed
improvements in Zone 5 including all written protests not withdrawn in writing before the
conclusion of the protest hearing, is made by the owners of less than one-half of the
area of the land to be assessed within that zone.
4. The Board hereby confirms the Final Engineer's Report diagram and
assessments for Zone 5 as set forth in the annual report of the Assessment Engineer of
Work and hereby levies the assessment to be placed on the tax rolls set forth therein
for Fiscal Year 1997-98 after November 5, 1996 Zone 5 voter approval and enactment
of this resolution.
5. That this Resolution No. 96/_ is to be presented for approval of and
enactment by the voters of Zone 5 (Pacheco area) of Countywide Landscape District
AD 1979-3 (LL-2) at the November 5, 1996 election according to the ballot proposition
set forth on attached Exhibit "A".
6. The County Clerk (Elections Division) is directed to take all steps necessary
to conduct the election required by this resolution.
VJW:df
cc: County Clerk (Elections Division)
Public Works (Skip Epperly)
Auditor-Controller
Assessor
County Administrator
County Counsel
H:\DFOTI\BD-ORDER\RES-ZN5.WPD
ZONE 5 (PACHECO) BALLOT PROPOSITION
[73 Words] "Shall Resolution No. 96/ of the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors be enacted to authorize a per year assessment of$30 per
single family parcel and Y2 (mobile home space) to 3 times (commercial
property) that rate to provide needed Pacheco area park and landscape
improvements including a linear park along Aspen Drive and Grayson
Creek and beautification sites along Pacheco Boulevard, Marsh Drive and
Center Avenue corridors and related park projects?
EXHIBIT "A
06/07/96 FRI 14:20 FA_X 510 313 2333 CCC PUBLIC FORKS COB 2002
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRA, COSTA COUNTY"
DATE: June 7, 1996
TO: Bc.and of Supervisors
FROM: J. I Aichael Walford, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Pe.:heco and EI Sobrante Landscape Assessments
FILE: 021 i6; 0205
On Tuesday, J me 4, 1996, the Board of Supervisors heard testimony from various
residents of the Pacheco and EI Sobrante communities relative to the proposed $30.00
landscape asse ;sment in each community. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board
requested additi-,nal information with respect to the costs and consequences of any delays
associated with iMplementation of the assessments if an advisory vote was taken on the
issue in each cc!-nmunity. The two options the Board may wish to consider in terms of a
local advisory yr to of the registered voters in each community are:
1) Acs risory Vote on the November 1996 Ballot.
2) Sp scial Mail-in Vote in September 1996.
OPTION•-_ 1: Ads,isory Measure on the November 1996 Ballot.
A. C6)STS
Et Sobrante: 14 Precincts X $170 = $2,380
Legal Notice = 100
Misc. and Printing = 1.500
Total $3,480
Pay checo; 3 Precincts x $170 = $510
Legal Notice - 100
Misc. and Printing 400
Total $1,010
R. C')N-5EQUENCES OF DELAY: Postponing approval of the formation of-the
EI Sbrante and Pacheco landscape zones after August 1, 1996, will mean
th,;it no assessments can be collected and consequently no work can be
st:irted on projects during the 1996-97 fiscal year. Board approval for the
fo!mation of the zones after an election in November is possible and would
er•able each community to begin their projects, starting July 1, 1997.
Gar. '
'' I - ' Sb. �v
06/07/96 FRI 14:21 F.-T 510 313 2333 CCC PUBLIC WORKS COB 003
QPTION_ Spe';ial Mail-in Ballot
A. _Q STS
EI 3obrante: 7,667 Registered Voters x $2.50 = $19,167.50
Pa -heco: 2,355 Registered Voters x $2.50 = $5,887.50
B. C(NSE UENCES OF_DELAY: Same as Option 1. A special mail-in vote
is i.onsiderably more expensive than a vote in the regular November election
bel:ause of the additional staff time involved in hand processing the votes.
The formation of landscape zones to be annexed to the Countywide Landscape District
and the setting ;)f an assessment do not require a vote of the community. The Board,
however, may v ish to consider an advisory vote, Town Hall meetings, or some other
process to solic : additional public input with respect to the formation of the EI Sobrante
and Pacheco zc ies.
In order to begin; assessment in fiscal year 1996-97, the Board needs to form the zones,
annex them to th 3 Countywide Landscape District and set the assessment level by the end
of July.
JMVNSE:pe
9:1EmgSvclS pDistlBoS.:
cc: Clerk of the E -ard
C.Hansen,Dputy-Administration
M.Avalon,Et )Ineering Services
J.Rushton, ;-edal Districts
D.Helsch,Ar, ministration
S.Lee,Elecd ns
0