CC MIN 1975 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

71 Discussion continued and Mr. Schroeter replied to question, and commented concerning whether provisions of the original General Plan for the area should be included in order that comparisons might be made , whether or not the original plan is pertinent to consideration of revisions recommended on the basis of the present situation , and the material to be presented to Council with the Planning Commission recommendations . In response to question with regard to responsibilities of Council members, Mr. Schroeter advised that both en- vironmental impact reports concerning the proposed shopping center and the EIR regarding the General Plan in addition to the related addenda must be reviewed . In response to question regarding documentation (p. 9, WK&A Budget) , Mr. Fales advised that indemnification and tax anticipation bonds will have to be put into proper legal forms which are not yet known. MOTION : Councilman Norris moved, seconded by Councilman Williams; to approve the recommendations contained in the City Manager' s report of July 11, 1975. (The recommendations are as follows : 1. that the Council authorize , by motion, Williams- Kuebelbeck to proceed with the completion of Task Order No. IV-9, regarding the proposed indemnification agreement, as provided in the proposal dated May 19 (this study would be financed from the G. I.D. 1-64 Revolving Fund) ; 2. that the Council authorize, by motion, Williams- Kuebelbeck to proceed with the completion of Task Order No. IV-10, regarding the proposed tax anticipation bonds, as provided in the pro- posal dated May 19, upon the condition that a separate agreement be entered into between the District and Mobil 031 which would provide for full reimbursement to the District by Mobil Oil for the cost of the subject Task Order (repre- sentatives of Mobil Oil have already prelimi- narily agreed to finance the cost of this Task Order) ; and 3: that the staff be authorized, by motion, to proceed with the selection process involved with retention of a new District bond consul- tant, with recommendations regarding final selection to be made to the Council at a later date. ) Councilman Henderson requested the record show that she opposes the motion because she believes approval of the subject recommendations is premature and that considera - tion of the General Plan should precede financial studies with regard to development 'of GID No. 1-64. Mr. Fates advised that the third recommendation concern- ing selection of a District bond counsel need not be -3- Reg.Mtg. 7/14/75