Laserfiche WebLink
Councilman Granger further questioned availability of copies of Prospectus to <br />public. Councilman Bury questioned differential between District Assessor and <br />District Appraiser and safeguards to prevent overlapping interests. <br />Mr. Kubelbeck advised this procedure proposed for District <br />Assessor and District Appraiser had been standard procedure <br />since 1898 for assessment of property in these circum- <br />stances and described in detail the criteria established <br />both by codes and Appraisers' Institutes, using standard <br />techniques to determine fair market value, both acting <br />independently. <br />Councilman Henderson's questions on specific procedures answered by Mr. Kubelbeck. <br />Councilman Henderson also questioned whether concept of District Assessor could be <br />delayed at least for a year, using County Assessor meanwhile, because of Leslie <br />Properties, Inc. being the sole owner and obligated to pay bond interest and <br />redemption. <br />Mr. Kubelbeck advised concept proposed, established for <br />good assessment practices, was irrespective of ownership <br />whether one owner or more. He stated further the precedent <br />of good assessing practices should be established from the <br />beginning. <br />Mr. Kubelbeck further remarked on how this concept had been <br />discussed since February at public hearings held, and felt <br />most questions had been fully answered. He advised further <br />this concept had been discussed with Attorney General, <br />County Assessor, with other financial and appraisal firms, <br />and that no other conclusions had been gained, but original <br />concept of a District Assessor as a necessity for setting a <br />stable guideline for protecting not only existing residents, <br />but to protect future, and should be implemented now for <br />orderly development of district. <br />Councilman Henderson questioned procedures for requesting proposals and whether <br />proposed time table gave sufficient time for responses. <br />Mr. Kubelbeck advised some preliminary work had already <br />been done in this respect and further detailed how requests <br />to be handled, with final interviews of three candidates to <br />choose the best qualified. <br />Councilman Henderson questioned whether Leslie Properties, owners of property had <br />agreed to District Assessor versus County Assessor. City Manager advised no one <br />present from ownership, but at time Feasibility Report was approved, Leslie had con- <br />curred with the report and gave assurances of their support, but that regardless of <br />their attitude, City shout proceed in the best interests of District. <br />Dr. Paul Young, of Redwood City Civic Association advised <br />of interest of public to this proposal and need for availa- <br />bility of the documents for study. <br />Paul Tessendorff asked assurance that taxpayers of Redwood <br />City would never be responsible for debts of Redwood Shores. <br />Mrs. Barrentine of Redwood City Civic Association cited <br />example of Foster City assessments; expressed doubt as to <br />_ justification for use of District Assessor for one segment of <br />Redwood City, and suggested postponement of this proposed <br />action until after State hearings had been concluded. <br />After further period of questions and answers, Councilman Rosselli moved to accept <br />Staff's recommendation to approve Prospectus for District Assessor and direct Staff <br />to implement the program, seconded by Councilman Bury. On question, Councilman <br />Henderson reiterated her reasons for voting no on this proposal. Motion carried on <br />roll call vote, Councilman Henderson voting no, Councilman Keckley being noted <br />absent. <br />357 <br />