Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JUNE 13, 2001 <br />Fifield reviewed his letter dated June 13, 2001 that outlined the issues facing <br />the City in issuing bonds to finance redevelopment in the Rice Street/Little <br />Canada Road area. Ile pointed out that item #6 in this memo demonstrates the <br />potential fora 40% reduction in TIF assistance available to a redevelopment <br />project. Fifield did note that the Legislature is considering holding cities <br />harmless for this loss of revenue through a grant program that would be <br />available for pending TIF projects for which bonds have been issued prior to <br />July 1, 2001. Therefore, Fifield suggested that if the City immediately issue <br />bonds for a redevelopment project at Rice and Little Canada Road, that project <br />may qualify as apre-existing condition and be eligible for the gratrt program. <br />Fifield indicated that the worst-case scenario would be that the City would be <br />out the cost of issuing bonds should the redevelopment project either not <br />materialize or not prove economically feasible. <br />Fifield pointed out that there are three options available to the City in issuing a <br />bond, and these are outlined in item #] 0 in his June 13°i memo. They include: <br />1. The City sells bonds to au underwriter and simultaneously <br />purchases the bonds as an investment; <br />2. The City sells bonds to an underwriter and escrows ("parks") <br />the proceeds until legislative and development issues are <br />resolved; <br />3. The City sells bonds to an underwriter in a conventional bond <br />issue. <br />Fifield indicated that the first option is preferred if the City has the funds <br />available to purchase the bond as an investment. The second option would <br />generate more up-front costs for the City, and the third option is the least likely <br />to happen given there are only 12 business days left until July 1~`. <br />Fifield reviewed a debt service projection fora $1,500,000 bond issue, and <br />pointed out that there is a $25,000 to $26,000 annual gap. Fif eld indicated <br />that even with the gap, this would be a reasonable bond issue. He also <br />indicated that there may be some increment from Country Drive that would be <br />used to reduce or eliminate the gap. <br />Fifield indicated that given the potential actions the Legislature may take with <br />regard to the property tax system and TIF, it would be in the City's best <br />interests to issue bonds and preserve the ability to provide assistance to a <br />redevelopment project in the Rice Street/Little Canada Road area. <br />The City Administrator reported that he met with the City's auditors regarding <br />the audit report, and discussed the potential for liquidating some assets to cover <br />Option 1 and the repurchase of the bond issue as an investment. The <br />Administrator reported that Option 1 provides the City with the most <br />3 <br />