CC MIN 1977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

, _ f- � 'r ... _ . ` 43'7 r �,� . and the cost of the needed water line equipment would cost more than a water line connected to the City. It was suggested that such a state- ment be made in wr�tTng as information�to Redorood Shores res�dents. , Discussion followed and Mr. Kuebelbeck comented and replied to questions concerning lack of any discrim�nation against new buyers in the District regarding cost of improvements, the fact that originally bonds were ' issued for $16 million and the developer contributed $19 million for improvements; the fact that the original type of financing kept new home prtces down as planned, and the problems caused by the FHA mora- torium Attent�on was called to page 21 of the report which shows lower cost of home ownership to Redwood Shores residents compared to those else- where with conventional financing. (See "Table 1, Differences in Home Ownership, District versus Conventional Financing (1971-1972)") � In response to question as to whether it might be possible to finance improvements without selling bonds, Mr.Kuebelbeck stated that that is essentially what occurred tn 1969 and the District survived, but that taxes would not be affected. Mr. Kuebelbeck referred to his recom- mendation conta�ned in pages 2 and 3 of the report Lengthy discussion followed and Mr Keubelbeck and Mr. Fales cortonented and replied to questions concerning the validity of Table 1; whether or not developers are encountering difficulties in selling new homes �n Redwood Shores, the fact that homes in Redwood Shores have not in- creased in value at the same�rate as homes of comparable original value elsewhere on the Peninsula; the frustration of homeowners at being unable to determine exactly what their share of the cost of improvements is; the fact that taxpayers elsewhere are also usually unable to de- termine in advance what their ultimate tax bill will be; the orig�nal � intent of utilizing the District to reduce the initial price of housing to make it more affordable, the fact that Redwood Shores homeowners en�oy an additional benefit in that they may deduct District taxes from �ncome tax whi]e those whose home purchase price included the cost of improvements may not do so; the fact that if the cortmercial property had been able to develop as planned that District residents could have expected to pay lower taxes, and the expectation that if the cormnercial property can now be developed that taxes will be reduced. Peter Gruchala, representing the Redwood Shores Homeowners Association, stated that he does not bel�eve that assessed valuation is a proper basis for assessment of the District tax. He stated homeowners want to know how the assessment is related to the advantages received. Councilman Norris referred to page 2 of his memo relating to "General,7." and advised that he now believes the Counc�l shou9d rescind its action authorizing Marshall & Stevens, Inc to undertake a reappraisal program for the 1977-78 fiscal year until an appraisal for bond purposes is completed. (See subsequent Council action, Minute Order #77-244 re- scinding the action, City Council M7nutes of November 7, 1977. � (Council recessed from 11•25 to il 35 a.m.) Don Warren, Mobil Oil Estates (Redwood) Limited, referred to wall ;' charts indicating construction phasing and costs for the Holly Inter- change and water line pro�ects u Y -3- Study Session GIO No. 1-64 11/7/77