Minutes 1966 Jan to June - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

City Manager reviewed talks he had had with Mrs. Gay and the Belmont School District board. Councilman Royer expressed his concern and recognition of problems faced by Belmont School District, and of responsibility he felt: towards making every effort to help. Further discussion held on school problems and assessed valuation figures used in school report. Bryce Muir, realty, business address of 28 Middlefield Rd., congratulated Council on selection of consultants used in preparing this project and urged Council proceed. Mr. Silvio Boicel.l?, 553 Santa Clara, expressed dissatisfac- tion with project Mrs. Pat Barrentine, 40 Carmel Lane, questioned various phases of project; spoke of pending legislation relative to use of County assessment rolls; cost of school maintenance and operations. Coleman Johnson stated it was never agreed fire station land or buildings would be dedicated, but again stated his commit- ment to vote a bond issue when presented with information on scope and nature of. same. Bill Oeser, 630 Roosevelt, commented favorably on Council's proceeding with project. Morton D. Podolsky, of Belmont, urged delay of Council action until further study made on school problems. Mrs. June Gates, 3 871 Vineyard Dr. spoke on need of good educational opportunities. After further qu=estions from Council and audience, and answers from Staff, City Manager asked that final Staff recommendation be considered, and stressed fact of L"slie Properties volunte.rri_ng to participate in this first bond issue to express faith in the project, and of their willingness to participate financially as a con- d t_on precedent to any bond sain. City Manager asked that City Attorney e allowed to make his statement and recommenda- tion. commenda- tion. in response to the Manager's request, the City Attorney stated that his concern was in three areas: 1. First and foremost is the safeguarding of the present residents of our City. To accomplish this the City has formed an improvement district which has two major functions. (a) The direct insulation of the general City taxpayer from payment of the cost of improvements being installed in a specific section of the City. (b) The protection of the general City taxpayer from the residual costs that would result if development occurred on a tract by tract development. Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and San Jose are good examples of area where piecemeal development occurred with the general City taxpayer ultimately