CC MIN 01-05 to 3-23-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 6 • Mayor Mario Biagi ®Y ace Mayor Wm.J.Stange' Redwood M IN U T ES CITY COUNCIL rn: Brenton GM/ Brenton C.9riNthgi FIB • . Robert H.Bury i BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CHAMBERS Gerald R.Chandler Marguerite Leg 401 MARSHALL STREET Leming Big wades February 9, 1981 Study Session • The Council of the City of Redwood City met on this date at 8:00 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors Chambers with Mayor Biagi'presiding. Councilmen present: Britschgi, Bury, Chandler, Leipzig, Rhodes, Stangel and Mayor Biagi Councilmen absent: None - • Officials and staff present: City Manager Fales, City Attorney Schricker, Asssistant City Manager Smith, Director of Finance Ference, City Clerk Hildebrand and Director of Public Works Addiego, Director of Planning Schroeter, Director of Parks and Recreation Griffiths, Building Official Malkemus and Police Chief Bold. BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES FINANCING PLAN FUTURE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF JANUARY 1981 Reports of City Manager - 2/4/81 Supplemental Information re Proposed GID 1-64 Facilities Charge; 1/29/81 Revised Report re Proposed GID 1-64 Facilities Charge • . Letter from President, Redwood Shores, Inc. re GID 1-64 Funding Proposal, 2/6/81 '"' Mayor Biagi reminded Council the Study Session was called for consideration of the subject report. William A. Sinsky, Bartle Wells Associates, presented the subject report and described the contents of the tables contained therein. Mr. Sinsky stated that the report recommends a facilities charge schedule for devel- opers sufficient to pay for the capital improvement projects, and the issuance of about $17 million of bonds in 1986 to finance the cash flow deficit, noting that facilities charge revenue would be used to decrease bond service taxes. In response to question, Mr. Sinsky said that recla- mation is not involved. After some discussion with Donald Warren, President of Redwood Shores, Inc., Mr. Sinsky replied to questions as to why variations exist in the numbers of anticipated Equivalent Dwelling Units (EUDs) pro- jected for each year until 1993. Both men agreed the total is accurate, acknowledged economics would be affected if there is a shift in the number of units each year, and asked that the table be referred back to staff of. Redwood Shores, Inc. to resolve. In response to question as to why Bartle Wells did not respond to the inquiries of GID 1-64 Advisory Committee regarding the concept of subdistricting and the establishment of separate fees for residential and commercial EUDs as they were asked to do, Mr. Sinsky stated it is believed the project costs are equitably distributed as recommended and that he did not learn of the questions regarding subdistricts until the report was completed. Mr. Sinsky defended the recommendation regarding the proposed sale of bonds, stating that making South Shores a separate district could make cost of improvements there pro- hibitive, and observing that homeowners have been supported by taxes from that undeveloped land so that it is equitable for the areas to remain combined for improvements to Pond A-12. City Attorney Schricker advised that the device of subdistricting is theoret- ically available depending upon the financial aspects of the situation. Mr. Schricker pointed out that such new districting would probably not be allowed !!"'t' under Proposition 13, which is now part of the State Constitution. noir Mr. Sinsky continued to comment and reply to questions, stating that the Study Session 2/9/81 •