CC MIN 1956 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1.48 has given two reports and he considered the report he was about to give as his third report. He read the following report: In my first report read to the Council on January 9, 1956 I referred to and discussed pertinent conditions set forth in an Ordinance #322 adopted by the City Council of Tracy, Calif., Sept. 22, 1955. Without being too repetitive I would like to quote Section 4.12 of that ordinance: "Section 412 (a) As a condition precedent to the approval of the Final Map, each subdivider shall first deposit with the City the sum of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for each lot delineated on such Final Map, such sum to be deposited in a fund to be known as the Capital Outlay Recr-ational Fund, which is hereby established, and the monies in said ,ow fund shall, only be used for the acquisitions of parks, and recreational areas, and their development including equipment for recreational purposes. No monies from said fund may be expended upon parks and recreational area acquired and in operation prior to the adoption of this ordinance." You will note the stipulation "each subdivision shall first deposit the sum of Fifty Dollars (550.00) etc.". �e Thus the City of Tracy has passed legislation in the form of an Ordinance setting up a Capital Outlay Recreational Fund which the City Council of Tracy can draw on for their expanding recreational improvements and not depend entirely and maybe not at all on their tax rate. I further pointed out that this ordinance further provides and I quote "It is the intention of the City Council herein that the sum of Fifty Dollars 050.00) shall be paid for each dwelling unit in any subdivision, but no more than One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) for a multiple family claelling on one lot shall be paid". end of quote. In my second report read to the Council February 6, 1956 I listed the number of units built in 1951 through 1955 in Redwood City. These totals ranged from a hi;7h of 1116 in 1951 to a low of 357 in 1955• Applying the fee of One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) per 4yelling that I proposed, the revenue would have been varying from $167,400 for 1951 to $52050 in 1955, a comparable tax rate saving from two to six cents based on one cent being equal to an $8,000.00 valuation. This Ordinance adopted by the City of Tracy Sept. 22, 1955 embodies the same type of legislation I proposed to the City Council July 25, 1955 only that the fee adopted by the City of Tracy is double what I proposed. Realizing that recreational capital improvements is not our only crying need I. wrote to the City Manager of Tracy asking these questions: and I quote from my letter: - 1. Has the City of Tracy any other similar ordinances setting -ip fees for Capital Improvement for departments other than Recreation? 2. a- What was the public reception to this ordinance? b- `�Vhat was the builders and realtors reaction- before and after itst 3. Has this ordinance been tested in the Courts and do you feel there is any reason that it might be? Enclosed with his answer was a copy of Ordinance 332 setting forth building construction requirements as well as permit and plan checking fees. It also "provided for an additional fee which is quite fully covered in his answer. I quote his letter in part: - "In addition to participation in the bonded indebtedness of the City and to pay a fair share of the costs of main trunk storm drains and other public works - - - a subdivider wishing to bring a subdivision into the city t hru annexation is required to conform to the sub- division ordinance of the City and to the Standar Specifications of the City, both of which are quite strict. All subdividers, whether in the City or intending to come into the City, are required to pay the City ;50.00 for each lot ,•which is set aside in a special fund for the acquisition of park sites and recreational .facilities. "Furthermore, everyone taking out a building permit is required to pay the City !'175.00 for each new building; or structure. The City places this in a Public -orks Capital Improve- ment Fund. - - - '1:then the City passed these ordinances there was scattered opposition fr,m real estate and subdivision interests, but the opposition soon dissipated. In general, the subdividers and real estate people are aware of the tremendous expense to the City resulting from their developments and realize that the City must someho,.v yet the money to pay the bill. "In regard to the legality of these ordinances, nothing; definite can be claimed one way - or the other. n general I would say that attorney who have looked at the ordinances have some doubt as to their legality, ut that they feel that the City is justified in establish- ing them and that about the only thing that can be done is to wait and see what the courts do, if anything." end of quote. Lwn These ordinances adopted by the City of Tracy is further evidence of the trend that Cities .N" thru out the state are following. The rising costs in city operation and expansion made it encumbent on the City Councils to provide some other means of obtaining revenue in addition ..r� to the tax rate. The influx of new people, new homes and new annexations makes in my. opinion annexation and subdivision fees a must. It is later than we think. The enactment of a subdivision fee was proposed, effective January 1955 would have amounted to some :50,000 in new revenue. And this revenue would not resulted from any additional taxes on the present taxpayer but a fair and equitable fee paid by the new people coming into Redwood City. Councilman Stout stated that Resolution 1979 set the annexation fee policy at 9?75.00 but did not indicate a fee to be assessed to subdivisions. He pointed out again his reason for annexation and