HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1975/08/12 Item 04a,bCITY OF CHULA VISTA ITEM N0. 4a,b
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
FOR MEETING OF: $/12/75
ITEM TITLE: Continuation o£ Public Hearing on Assessment, Del Mar Avenue 1911
Act District~74-1
Resolution's Confirming Proceedings and Assessment for Del Mar
Avenue 1911 Act Assessment District 74-1
SUBMITTED BY Director of Public Works/City Engineer ,
ITEM EXPLANATION
~''U~
This item was continued by the City Council from the meeting of August 5,
1975. The Council asked that the staff provide the cost estimates for all
properties within District 74-1. This estimate is attached. A comparison
of the estimated costs of the total assessment reveals that all but 3 of the
estimated costs are low, even though the total construction cost is less
than 28 of the estimated cost. The reason for the difference between the
estimated cost and the total assessment cost is that a different method of
calculating the assessment was used for the final assessment spread.
Mr. Joseph T. Simmons, one of the property owners of Assessment Parcel #6,
asked the question at the public hearing why the estimate furnished to him
by staff prior to construction was only slightly greater than his actual
assessment when he believed the estimate included a sidewalk and driveway
and when in fact no sidewalk nor driveway was constructed adjacent to his
property. As was stated at the August 5 meeting, the cost estimates were
very preliminary and were furnished as a service to the property owners
so that they could better determine for themselves whether or not they would
be in favor o£ installing street lights and for undergrounding existing
overhead utilities as a part of the 1911 Act improvements. The letter stated
that the figure was an estimate and the extent of improvements indicated
were of a general nature.
(continued on supplemental page 2)
r'VI IIbIT(~ AT TA/~1 IfT
C /~f1101 I J HI I HVr7CU
Agreement Resolution X Ordinance Plat Other
Environmental Document: Attached Submitted on
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City Council close public hearing and adopt resolution confirming
proceedings and assessment.
BOARD/ COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
A P P R O V E D
by the
City Cou:;c9.1
COUNCIL ACTIONS o f
Ch~.ala tii(yts., California
Dated 4 ~ ~a~ ~~
........................................................................
Form A- 113 (Rev 5 - 75)
Aaenda Item No. 4a,b
Supplemental page 2
The actual assessment apportioned to Mr. Simmons is based upon benefits
received and does not include costs for which he receives no benefit. He
does not have a driveway and he is not assessed for a driveway. He has
only been assessed for that portion of the sidewalk which is deemed to be
of a general or community benefit. His assessment is totally consistent
with assessments throughout. the district.
After much discussion with Mr. Simmons, it is my opinion that his protest
is against the preliminary estimate and the description of work to be
performed as shown in the staff letter of July 29, 1974. This type of
protest is not appropriate to this public hearing. I believe he is not
protesting the actual assessment against his property. Unless the City
Council Finds fault with the actual assessment or the work performed
the public hearing should be closed and the assessment confirmed.
7 ,f ~ S
Agenda Item No. 4a,b
Supplemental page 3
Assessment
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Estimated Cost
July 29, 1974
(No Street Lights, Total
:1o Undergrounding) Assessment
$3346 $2562.86
1873 2204.04
8632 5804.93
1976 2263.52
1890 2721.67
2145 2436.70
2359 2645.46
1957 2307.81
2034 2305.89
2034 2306.97
1954 2231.02
2879 3377.50
1954 2235.09
2879 3372.56
1524 1894.39
2012 1522.43
Total $41,448 $42,1.92.84
>,