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

Browse Search

4;69 IWO can avoid being assessed each year, Mr. Schricker pointed out that the debt service must be met, so the District must look at assessment in terms of the amount which must be raised and that annual assessment is good practice, as well as being set up as a requirement when the District was formed. Mayor Biagi stated for the record that the facilities charge being con- sidered is a charge which would be made for new development in the District and that it would not affect present homeowners. John Murray, 568 Seahorse, referred to his undated letter received January 16, 1981 objecting to further bond issues to finance improvements in the District, and suggesting there may be some manner in which the present remaining bond authorization could be eliminated by a vote of residents of the District to insure that bonds would not be issued in the future. Mr. Murray urged approval of the facilities charge. He suggested an investigation be made to determine the amount of tax paid by the Pond A-12 property in the past which was contributed to the District. Mr. Murray said he does not believe its development has anything to do with him and that he favors the development agreement concept described by Mr. Fales. In response to question, Mr. Murray acknowledged that he received a preliminary report of indebtedness against his property, but, although he is a lawyer, he did not read it and believes other home buyers were equally ignorant of the bonding situation until they received tax bills. In further response to question, Mr. Murray said that he understands that none of the present Council members were in office at the time the District was formed, and that they are attempting to do what is best for the property owners there within the requirements of the District, and urged Council to eliminate the present bond authorization. Pat Campbell, 576 Seahorse, inquired why District homeowners cannot simply ..., pay property taxes according to his understanding of Proposition 13 which would have frozen his property tax at a lower rate. City Attorney Schricker explained that the District tax is based on the amount of revenue required ...o to meet the bond service District property owners have an obligation to pay and is unrelated to Proposition 13. Mr. Fales and Mr. Schricker again explained that the increase in value and greater turnover rate of residential property versus commercial is causing a property tax shift to homeowners in accordance with the property tax formula contained in Proposition 13, noting that it has occurred even more rapidly than anticipated. In response to Mr. Campbell's comment that he understood the construction of Fluor headquarters would lower District taxes, it was pointed out the Fluor development has only been con- structed since the March 1, 1980 assessment date and should affect next year's tax. Gus Pappas, 587 Seahorse, suggested Council is "leaning over backward" to accommodate developers, when it is not necessary to entice them to build in the District. Mr. Pappas observed that developers could be charged the facilities fee and include that charge to buyers. He inquired as to why all of Redwood City does not participate in District costs, and it was ex- plained how the District was established; the fact that it is not the same as the rest of the City; and that sellers of District property are required 1 to advise buyers of the District obligations related to the property. Kristen Edmark, 494 Barkentine, objected to Redwood Shores residents paying for commercial development at South Shores area and to the issuance of any more bonds. Harvey Edmark, 494 Barkentine, acknowledged he was aware of the bond situation . at the time of purchasing his home, but did not expect the amount of tax to be so large. Mr. Edmark urged that District rules be changed so that no additional bonds can be issued. He commented on how public improvements are reported to be financed elsewhere. Gregg Doran, President, Redwood Shores Homeowners Association (RSHA), 510 Marlin Drive, stated that RSHA supports a split. fee arrangement for residen- tial and commercial property; that he believes a lower fee may be necessary „o„ to get commercial development started; that a reasonable facilities fee to Study Session 2/9/81 • Page 3 1 1