1967 Jan to Dec - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1u! Stone & Youngberg in the bid. As a result of the discussion on the financial consultant's participation, Mr. Zelles phoned one of the principals of the firm, and returned to the meeting with the information that their participation would be approximately 16% or 17%, unless the other members of the syndicate had expanded their participation since the ratio _ was figured. Mr. Charles Blair, Project Manager of DMJM, read their written recommendation that' the bids be awarded, and stated that in preparing the projections for the construc- tion year, 1967-68, DMJM had used a 6% interest factor. The City Manager then sub- mitted his written recommendation to the Council, after which Councilman Rosselli, seconded by Councilman Granger, offered the Resolution awarding Series B, Reclama- tion Bonds, by moving to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5388 SELLING $930,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF REDWOOD CITY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1-64 RECLAMATION BONDS, SERIES B, AND FIXING THE DEFINI- TIVE RATES OF INTEREST THEREON. Councilman Granger requested that the communica- tions recommending the award be made a part of the Official Records. Motion carried on roll call vote, Councilman Henderson voting no, Councilman Keckley being noted absent. RESOLUTION NO. 5389 SELLING $1,645,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF REDWOOD CITY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1-64 1964 FACILITIES BONDS, SERIES B, FIXING THE DEFINI- TIVE RATES OF INTEREST THEREON, was adopted on motion of Councilman Petersen, seconded by Councilman Bury, Councilman Henderson voting no, Councilman Keckley being noted absent. The Mayor announced that since the representatives of the property owner and con- sulting engineers for GID 1-64 were present, that Budget would be the first item considered. A revised GID 1-64 Budget had been distributed to the Council before the start of the meeting. Mr. James Reiter, of DMJM, explained that there was no dollar change in the total Budget, but the revision had only to do with separating interest money from the construction funds. He explained further that for the first time the District will require a maintenance and operation tax to fund the cost of the District Assessor. This is shown in the Budget as submitted. There was discussion as to whether any tax advantage to the land owner would re- sult from this handling of the funds, and an explanation offered as to the charges for administration by City Staff, which appear in the GID 1-64 Budget. Councilman Rosselli moved to accept the GID 1-64 Budget as revised and recommended by the City Manager, seconded by Councilman Petersen and carried. (MINUTE ORDER #67-129) Councilman Bury asked that expenditure reports for this District be related to the categories in the Budget and submitted periodically to the Council for th6ir information. (Memo 6/15/67) GID 1,2,3-65 BUDGETS were the next considered. City Manager advised the Council that we are running well ahead of schedule in the construction; that all recent bids have come in well under the Engineer's Estimate, and have more than made up the overage experience in the first bid awarded. IDI 14 '91