My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
BOOK 26_1955-11-28 to 1957-06-17
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Minutes
>
1955 to 1957 Book 26
>
BOOK 26_1955-11-28 to 1957-06-17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 10:17:41 AM
Creation date
10/16/2017 10:00:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
11/28/1955
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
510
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
request, seconded by Councilman Stout and carried.' <br />COUNTY MANAGER REGARDING PROPOSED GARBAGE AND REFUSE DISPOSAL DISTRICT. Councilman Britschgi stated that this <br />is a controversial problem and this should be turned over to the City Attorney ,for study. Councilman Stout <br />asked that the letter be read. The Clerk read the letter. Councilman Royer moved that this be turned over <br />to the City Attorney and City Manager and the Mayor be requested to have a study meeting as soon as possible <br />and the City Clerk to notify the County Manager as to what the Council intends to do, seconded by Councilman <br />Spillers and carried. <br />RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS, COUNCILMEN AND DEPARTMENT HEADS. <br />Councilman Stout read the following report on annexation and subdivision charges. <br />ANNEXATION - SUBDIVISION CHARGES - Par+ II <br />Since January 9th last when I submitted to the Council a report or paper on Annexation - <br />Subdivision Charges considerable interest has been shown by various groups and residents of <br />Redwood City. This interest no doubt hinges about many questions concerning this type of <br />charge. People are wondering - what are these charges - the'reasons for them - how will it <br />• effect them - if they are a resident or they plan to build a new home 'or if they plan to <br />annex to Redwood City, what will these charges mean to them? And further, what will the money <br />so collected be used for? Will it go directly into the General Fund, thus having a direct <br />effect on the tax rate? Or will this money be set up in a specific fund and used exclusively <br />for Capital Improvements? I personally feel it is encumbent on the City Council to be quite <br />specific what these charges, if and when executed, are for, the reasons for them and how <br />the money so collected is to be spent. <br />i <br />It is therefore the intent of this report to answer some of these questions as I see <br />them to summarize the thing thus far. <br />To date we have received several reports on the subject, one requested from the City <br />Manager, one from our Planning Advisor, Mr. Larry Wise and two from Oddstad Homes, including <br />the one just received last Wednesday. The reports submitted by Mr. Rolison and Mr. Wise sets <br />forth the reasons for annexation - subdivision charges and the City Manager has recommended that <br />the council adopt a charge of $168.00 or somewhere near that figure proposed in Mr. Wisers <br />'report. <br />P. <br />In our study session in November, called for the express purpose of studying the report <br />r prepared by Mr. Wise, the Council informally agreed that some sort of annexatio-subdivision <br />f� charge legislation should be enacted. However the amount was still in question. I suggested <br />4� One hundred -fifty dollars (6150.00) per dwelling unit be adopted as itwas slightly under (by <br />' $18.00) the figure of 6168.00 proposed in Mr. Wisers report. <br />f <br />Using this figure hypothetically on a home with a twenty year loan the charge would <br />amount to 62.5 cen-us per month. Such a figure would be a negligble amount in a home -buyers <br />monthly payment. <br />I would now like to apply this figure of $150.00 against the family dwellings built in <br />the five years from 1951 through 1955. These figures were obtained from the building inspec- <br />tors office. The number of family dwellings includes in addition to single dwellings, <br />• duplexes, triplexes, apartments and motels. <br />A - S $150 Cost/Unit <br />Total Units. Value Charge at $.625/mo <br />1951 1116 $9,05.450 $167,400 $6971-50 <br />1952 768 6,455.000 115,200 480.00 <br />1953 663 4,949,800 99,45o 414.38 <br />1954 645 4,667,005 . 96,600 402.50 <br />1955 357 2,4883543 53,350 223.13 <br />3549 $27,605,798 $532,000 $2217.51 <br />If for convenience we consider one cent (1¢) of the tax rate to average $8,000 for these five <br />years we find the charges for - <br />1951 $167.400 equal to .21 of tax rate <br />1952 115p200 n n .14 it it n <br />1953 99.450 " if .124 it it rt ' <br />1954 96.600 n It .12 tt it tr <br />1955 53.350 it .067 tt it rr <br />' 3 <br />That is if such funds were to go into the General Fund and thus used, reduce the tax rate. <br />U pm <br />The total units 3,549, built in the years 1951 thru 1955 indicates the sugged increase in <br />Redwood City's growth and (that yet to come) is putting a strain on our city's ability to keep <br />pace in our Capital Improvement without extending our tax rate ever upward. It is true however <br />that these new homes mean greater city income but the operating expenses keeps climbing also. <br />Capital Improvements - <br />I can only repeat what I mentioned in my other report as capital improvements. <br />Police and Fire Protection <br />Library extension <br />Park and Recreation Development ` <br />Flood Control <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.