Laserfiche WebLink
12 <br /> obligation associated with the agreement there seemed to be some misconceptions <br /> relating to the release of bonds from the indemnification agreement . Council <br /> was advised that the need for the indemnification of bonds to continue in force <br /> according to the criteria set up by Williams -Kuebelbeck & Associates , Inc . , was <br /> related more to the level of risk acceptable to the District rather than the <br /> extent of financial obligations assumed by the developer . Since the refunding - - <br /> program and the associated indemnification agreement would be specifically de - <br /> signed to accommodate the developer , it was entirely appropriate that the burden <br /> of risk be aligned accordingly . It was noted that the willingness of the devel - <br /> opers or their financial backers to assume that risk would be an expression of <br /> confidence in their own development program . <br /> Mobil Oil Estates , in their report , had recommended four rules be applied with <br /> regard to the refunding bond procedure . Williams -Kuebelbeck & Associates con- <br /> curred with these as set forth below : <br /> 1 . The total amount of refunding bonds that would be <br /> issued should not exceed $ 5 million . <br /> 2 . The amount of refunding bonds that would be issued <br /> in any one year should not exceed 5600 , 000 , <br /> 3 . The District would apply the proceeds of such issues <br /> to pay District debt service and thereby reduce Dis - <br /> trict taxes as much as reasonably possible , but con - <br /> sistent with the objective of maintaining the Dist - <br /> rict ' s equivalent tax rate at a realistic and relatively <br /> steady level both during and after the development <br /> program . <br /> 4 . Any surplus refunding bond proceeds not applied in <br /> accordance with the above would be aggregated and <br /> invested to form a contingency fund which could be <br /> applied to even out and make more nearly uniform the <br /> rate of District taxation in those years immediately <br /> following the last issue of such refunding bonds . <br /> It was noted that the procedures for further development for applying refund bond <br /> proceeds and other District revenues specifically for payment of debt service on <br /> reclamation bonds or facilities bonds would continue to proceed in an orderly <br /> fashion as the detailed financial program of Mobil Oil Estates became more defi - <br /> nitely determined , and would be designed to produce a reasonable and stable tax <br /> rate over the development period for the individual property owner . <br /> It was noted that Mobil Oil Estates had indicated that the refund bonds would <br /> most probably be indemnified by the Bank of America and would be absolutely <br /> indemnified until totally paid off- that no refunding bonds would be issued un- <br /> less totally indemnified . (I . E . , unless the developer totally indemnifies the <br /> District taxpayer against any payment above 1 . 5% of F . M . V . ( fair market value ) in <br /> the District , on the refundable bonds , after all other bonds have been paid , <br /> after the fact , the developers and/or his financial backers would have to present <br /> " cash on the table " at the time the bonds would be paid off . ) <br /> To clarify the question regarding "a second party of sufficient financial <br /> character, " it was brought out that in this particular case it meant that basi - <br /> cally they were talking about either Mobil Oil or the Bank of America , since this <br /> could not be a " shell " corporation or an underfinanced corporation . That there <br /> could be a third party established , was noted , such as a bonding company , with <br /> regard to a performance bond , payment bond , cash contribution , letter of credit , <br /> which would involve some type of long term detailed legal documents . <br /> Mention was made that attempting to lower the tax rate in Redwood Shores would <br /> not only benefit the residents but would allow the area to be more competitive <br /> for the development of a shopping center . It was brought to Council ' s attention <br /> that the 1 . 5% maximum tax rate recommended would be controlled by the City <br /> Council and/or District Board as they would prevail over the number of construc - <br /> tion bonds allowed to be issued each year , and provided recommended guidelines <br /> were applied taxes would not raise to a point higher than they are now or were <br /> in 1968 . More than likely the taxes would be reduced , subject to increases in <br /> assessed value , <br /> It was suggested that Council ' s concern regarding the economic question and the <br /> use of refunding bonds for the next ten to twelve year span , be clarified by a <br /> response in writing by Staff . <br /> City Manager noted that a report would be forthcoming shortly with reference to <br /> the trade off with the State regarding Bair Island and subsequent lands . <br /> Mayor Keckley ordered a five -minute recess at 9 : 25 p . m . <br /> 9/11/73 <br /> Adj . Reg , Mtg . <br />