CC Min 1997-07-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

C. Carol Ford, 363 Bowsprit, representing the Redwood Shores Homeowners Association, expressed support for continuing the Development Agreement "because it is a mechanism by which Facility Fees are collected and have been collecting also the bonds which the residents of Redwood Shores pay in addition to our regular taxes, we pay bonds in addition. And then the Facility Fees came after that when the bonds were held in abeyance, and then the Facility Fees were from the Developers. There is no more land left to develop." Mrs. Ford said Developers participation would soon end, and "there will still be collection of these Fees, and this money will be used in Redwood Shores, so we would like to have a greater participation from the people who live in Redwood Shores with what we could do with the money." She spoke in support of a January 1, 1998 date to change the membership on the Committee. She agreed that there would be a surplus at the end of the Development Agreement and reaffirmed her belief that the residents of Redwood Shores should determine where that money is spent. D. Robert Slusser, 541 Cringle, advised that in 1979 he was asked to serve as a member of the GID 1-64 Advisory Board. It was created to look at alternatives to General Obligation Bonds, to fund District projects. "After the three years of work the Facility Fees concept emerged, and what you see before you, is an extension, an outgrowth of that. It has been successful." Mr. Slusser said the one disappointment was that the residents of Redwood Shores were not included in the decision maki~ ~ocess. He said, "I am absolutely elated that there is now a consideration;efi ough it is late, that the community be involved in part of the Facility Fee Committee. I commend the staff and those who see the foresight to make that change." He expressed his support for the continuation of the Development Agreement and Facility Fee Agreement for what it has accomplished and can do. E. Don Warren, representing Redwood Shores Properties, Inc., said he was a member of the GID 1-64 management committee. "I am here tonight to recommend to you that you extend the GID 1-64 Development Agreement for five years, and that you extend the Agreement with the exact terms in which the Agreement is currently written." Mr. Warren provided background on the evolution of the Facilities Fees Committee and its functions over the past fifteen years. "Bob Slusser is correct that there was an Advisory Committee struck for GlD 1-64 at the time that the residents of Redwood Shores had lobbied the City to truncate the ability of the City to issue any more General Obligation Bonds at Redwood Shores. You may recall that there were $220 million of GO Bonds authorization originally set. The District sold some $30 million worth of bonds and the ability to issue more bonds was truncated or terminated by the Council. That Advisory Committee worked with the Council to come up with that decision, and then worked with the Developer and the City to set up a new system for funding public improvements in Redwood Shores. Prior to the formation of the District, the Facility Fee portion of the District, the City District was obligated to undertake far more work at Redwood Shores than it had under the Development REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 55 JULY 14, 1997 MINUTES Page No. 460 PAGE 23