CC MIN 1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mr . James L . Kuebelbeck briefly reviewed the basic concepts and principles in - volved in the program which would use refunding bonds as a financial device to defer current debt . He noted that it was understood that the risk inherent in a program that borrows money on future growth to pay off a portion of an existing debt must remain with the developer . With regard to re -definition of District -Developer responsibilities concerning construction of public improvements , it was recommended that in the future the District assume the responsibility for the design , construction , and financing of only those public improvements within the District which were more tradition- ally and conventionally conceived as being of overall benefit to the District , and that the developer be responsible for the design , construction and financing of all other required so- called " in- tract " public improvements , i . e . , street , sanitary sewer , water and storm drain facilities , parks . and other like items . The City Manager felt that if Council was amenable toward a realignment of Dis - trict-Developer responsibilities he recommended that the Staff be authorized and instructed to prepare a further , specific report , directed at the implementation of the realigned responsibilities involved . Concern was expressed by Council with respect to the conditions for lifting the current moratorium on issuance of building permits within GID 1 -54 . The City Manager reviewed the need of a water storage reservoir within the District , and modification of the oxidation ponds currently being utilized for sewage treatment and disposal purposes within the District and that the new developer , Mobil Oil Estates , (Redwood ) , Ltd . , in their desire to have the moratorium lifted in the near future , and in order that initial development could proceed , had made a pre - liminary offer to advance funds necessary for the required projects , pending re- imbursement by the District from the proceeds of initial future construction bond sales . It was Staff ' s opinion that the required water storage reservoir and modified oxidation pond projects qualified as public improvements which would generally benefit the entire District . It was felt therefore , the financial responsibility for the construction of these projects should rest with the Dis - trict . It was recommended that the Council approve , in concept , the advance of funds necessary to construct the projects which would allow lifting of the build - ing moratorium . It was further recommended , if this concept was acceptable to Council , that Staff be authorized and instructed to prepare an agreement which would effect this arrangement , for subsequent review and consideration by the Council . City Manager noted , that in this connection , Staff would need further Council guidance specifically regarding the proper time for lifting the building moratorium . Basically , the moratorium could be lifted at any of three different times ; upon execution of the agreement and the receipt of funds by the District ; upon completion of plans and specifications and the award of a construction con - tract ; or upon completion and acceptance of the project . He advised that the earlier the date , the more conditional the lifting of the building moratorium should be , and that possible staging of the release of numbers of building per - mits should be considered . In response to Council ' s concern regarding the ability to separate the planning ( land use ) questions from the financial questions in any meaningful way , unless they knew what they were planning for , City Manager felt that in principle they would be able to do so , that the land use would be a part of the planning process and that not having the answers to the land use problems really wouldn ' t make it difficult to respond to the proposal that was made in general terms because the plan was a basic policy type of question . Council was reassured that as Redwood City Council and as the District Board (Redwood Shores ) they were in a position to make any decisions they would want to with respect to the future of Redwood Shores , that Staff would acquire any information needed to resolve any of Council ' s questions . In the ensuing discussion , it was brought out that perhaps new ways of achieving certain goals for Redwood Shores should be considered . It was questioned whether the goals were the same as before or even if the goals should be the same . Council was reassured they were not committed to the previous goals but would have the option to amend the land use to adjust to the goals which could be a different mix of uses than what had been proposed previously . In response to Council ' s concern regarding addressing themselves to general principles in mat - -' ters of fiscal policies at this point in time , rather than land use policies , they were assured that this area had been given a great deal of thought before being presented to Council as a recommendation . Mr . Kuebelbeck again discussed the basic concepts and principles involved in the refunding program . While refunding bonds could be repaid by future tax and other revenues of. the District if future development occurs as planned , the risk of borrowing on anticipated growth could not be borne by the District . He noted that in order to fully understand the full ramifications of the refunding and indemnification program , it was necessary to isolate three distinct elements of the procedure ; 1 ) the requirements for an indemnification agreement , 2 ) the financial obligation assumed by the indemnification agreement and 3 ) the re - lease of refunding and construction bonds from the indemnification agreement . It was felt that although it appeared there was general agreement with regard to the requirements for an indemnification agreement and the resulting financial 9/11/73 Adj . Reg . Mtg .