CC MIN 01-07 to 12-15-1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

370 STUDY SESSION Mayor Biagi called the study session to order at 9:22 a.m. °""0 1. Report on Financing Plan for Future Improvements - GID No. 1-64 (Bartle Wells Associates) 2. Parkwood 101 Buy-In Costs - GID No. 1-64 City Manager Fales referred to the several reports submitted to Council in addition to the basic reports by Municon and Bartle Wells Associates, as follows: -Report by Director of Finance (7/31/80) on Parkwood 101 Proposed Annexation Costs -Report of City Manager 10/9/80 transmitting 1) communication from Parkwood 101 Associates dated August 15 commenting on report of July 31 by Director of Finance; 2) responses by Director of Public Works (9/10/80) and Director of Finance 10/8/80) to communication by Parkwood 101; 3) report from GID 1-64 Advisory Committee (10/3/80) re Municon Study relative to Parkwood 101 "Buy-In" costs, and a report from that committee 10/10/80) on the subject of the Bartle Wells report re Future Financing of GID 1-64 Public Improvements; 4) communication from Redwood Shores, Inc. 10/1/80) commenting on the Bartle Wells report. Mr. Fales suggested a brief "walk through" of each of the reports by the authors of the reports, both of whom were present, to be followed by questions and comments by Council, the Advisory Committee and Redwood Shores, Inc., and advised that the intent of the meeting is to get as complete an understanding as possible of the concepts and the facts contained in the two reports. Ire Financing Plan for Future Improvements - GID No. 1-64 (Bartle Wells Associates) Edwin A. Wells, Bartle Wells Associates, 100 Bush Street, San Francisco, introduced his associate, William A. Sinsky, and commented on the cooperative effort of the City staff and the Redwood Shores Advisory Committee to review build-out schedules and projections for future growth, and to determine what the implications were for long term capital improvements in order to prepare a long-term financing plan that is flexible. He reviewed portions of the report, noting that the appendix consisted of current and projected cost estimates for capital improvements in Redwood Peninsula, as well as South Shores (commencing in 1985). Mr. Wells referred to the section in the report relating to the origin for financing the District by means of general obligation bonds authorized by vote of.the property owners for facilities and recla- mation purposes. Valuation of the reclamation bond issue totaled approximately $9.5 million and facilities, $18.5 million, while the Public Works estimates for Redwood Peninsula project costs amounted to $14 million and South Shores project costs, $48 million, thus approximately a total $62 million expressed in 1980 dollars in anticipated public improvements to permit build-out over a period of fifteen years. Mr. Wells stated that they then began to look at sources of revenue available, that up until now bond service for public improvements have been paid from property taxes, and their approach was to recommend a facilities charge which would be charged at the time the property is occupied, and which would be linked to projected capital improvements. He referred to the table on page 7 as an example, and defined "equivalent dwelling units" as a single family residential structure, or equivalent, or 1500 square feet commercial floor space. Table 5A-Schedule A also illustrates the effect of escalation of the basic $1800 facilities charge at the rate of $500 per year, times the number of equivalent dwelling units to raise funds for capital Adj.Reg.Mtg. raw 10/11/80 Page 2 rnill�