Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF PLFASANTON <br /> <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 94-82 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE <br />DEPUTX DIRECTOR OF UTJLITn4:q TO DENY THE <br />REQUEST OF GEORGE SCUN~,IIIER FOR A CREDIT <br />AGAINST WATER CONNECTION CHARGES <br /> <br />in 1963, the Ple~;nton Township Water District created an assessment dishict <br />to construct and extend the water system to sexve specific areas generally along <br />FOOthill Road and in the Ridgelands are, a; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, thereafter bonds were sold and the properties which benefitted by these <br /> improvements were assessed proportionately; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />certain parcels along Kilkare Road (Alameda County Assessor heel Nos. <br />941-2200-2,941-2200-1-1,941-2200-1-3 and 941-2200-1-4) located then, as now, <br />outside the City of Pleasanton, were assessed a total of $6,022 for these <br />improvements, which assessments have been paid in full; and <br /> <br />George Schneider has represented to the City that he is now the owner of these <br />parcels and has requested that all of the assessments which have been paid with <br />respect to these properties be applied to his purchase of a one-inch water metes <br />to serve the parcels; and <br /> <br />the City's Municipal Code (Chapter 14.08) provides that a credit against water <br />connection charges may be permitLed for faeih~ies of general City obligation <br />which have been installed by assessment districts, benefit districts, or other <br />methods not finanesd by the City; and <br /> <br />on Februax-y 1, 1994, the City's Deputy Dimeter of Utilities wrote to Mr. <br />Schneider informing him that he was not entitled to the credit because the credit <br />is available only for assessments paid for facilities of general City obligation, but <br />that these assessments were not general City obligations; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />thereafter Mr. Schneider, through his legal counsel, appealed that detexmination <br />to the Pleasanton City Council, which heard testimony and considered all relevant <br />evidence on June 21, 1994 and July 19, 1994. <br /> <br />NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF PLEASANTON RESOLVES <br />AS FOLLOWS: <br /> <br /> <br />