CC MIN 1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

41 Mayor Keckley called upon City Manager Fales to bring the Council up to date with regard to the status of GID 1 -64 - Redwood Shores . Mr . Pales referred to his detailed report of July 20 , 1973 and the discussion held at the Council meeting of September 11 . He restated the four basic areas of policy direction which should be considered at this time : 1 , Use of Refunding Bonds and Indemnification 2 . Re -Definition of District-Developer Responsibilities Regarding Construction of Public Improvements 3 . Conditions for Lifting Current Moratorium on Issuance of Building Permits Within GID 1 -64 4 . Disposition of Previous Contribution Obligation of Leslie Properties Amounting to Approximately $1 . 8 Million Mr . Fales advised that his report of October 31 attaching the letter of October 1 from Mobil Oil Estates Limited and the letter of October 29 from Williams- Kuebelbeck and Associates , Inc , should be considered together with his July 20 re - port as one complete report , Mayor Keckley thanked Mr . James Kuebelbeck for his very clear report and asked him to comment concerning refunding bonds and indemnification . James Kuebelbeck , Williams -Kuebelbeck & Associates , stated that in the context used in regard to Redwood Shores , refunding bonds are a means of borrowing monies which will be repaid in the future on existing bonds in order to lower the tax rate . He advised that classical use of the term " refunding bond " re - fers to a bond sold where its total value is used to pay off an existing bond . Therefore , when the bond prospectus point is reached , another term will be used here . Mr . Kuebelbeck continued , stating that in regard to the Redwood Shores re - funding bonds , it is written into the agreement that the developer will indemnify the District against those bonds under any condition above 1 . 5% of fair market value . There being no objection to the request of Councilman Norris that the Council first consider separately the third and fourth areas mentioned by Mr . Pales , Mayor Keckley asked Mr . Fales to comment . Mayor Keckley then offered the extra copies of the City Manager ' s report of October 31 to members of the audience . Mayor Keckley advised that if the supply was not large enough at present , members of the audience might leave their names and addresses with the City Clerk and a copy would be mailed to them . City Manager Pales stated that in view of the revised Mobil offer received after the September 11 meeting , that areas 3 . and 4 . should be considered together rather than separately , as treated in his detailed July 20 report . Mr . Fales read pages 3 through 6 of his October 31 report detailing the offer from Mobil and the proposal for lifting the moratorium . In response to questions from Councilman Henderson, Mr . Pales advised that the difference between the City ' s mention of 584 units and Mobil ' s 690 units is not significant , since the figures were reached differently . He also advised that the subdivision maps for the units involved are permanently recorded and will not come before the Council again for review . In further response to question , City Attorney Schricker stated that there is no authority for the Council to re -review the subdivision maps . However , he added , that if the developer were to propose some use of the land which would come under other review conditions , then the Council would have to review it . He suggested �- examples such as use permit , planned development or landscaping . Discussion followed concerning whether the $ 1 . 8 million figure being used as the working figure to represent the residual financial obligation of Leslie Properties is a fair one and a firm one . Mr . Pales said the figure is not absolutely firm , but it is desirable for the District , the City , the whole community and the de - . veloper to come to a mutual agreement and erase the debt . On the same subject , City Attorney Schricker suggested consideration be given as to how the figure was reached . Mr . Schricker said that the prior developer ' s offer was made with respect to given projects which have been quantified into dollars and cents . There is justification for objective review by Council as to what is being offered now and what was offered in the past , but the $1 . 8 million 11/1/73 Adj . Reg . Mtg .