Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA <br />NOVEMBER 7, 2001 <br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a special meeting of the City Council of <br />Little Canada, Minnesota was held on the 7th day of November, 2001 in the <br />Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said <br />City. <br />Mayor Michael I. Fahey reconvened the special meeting of November 1, 2001 <br />at 6:00 p.m. and the following members of the City Council were present at <br />roll call: <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />Mayor <br />Council Member <br />Council Member <br />Council Member <br />Council Member <br />Mr. Michael I. Fahey <br />Ms. Beverly Scalze <br />Mr. Jim LaValle <br />Mr. Matt Anderson <br />Mr. Rick Montour <br />ALSO PRESENT: <br />City Administrator <br />Accountant <br />Deputy Clerk <br />Mr. Joel R. Hanson <br />Ms. Shelley Rueckert <br />Ms. Kathy Glanzer <br />SENIOR The City Administrator presented the Council with revised cost estimates <br />IIOUSING for a senior housing project on the southeast corner of Rice Street and <br />PROJECT Little Canada Road. Those cost estimates were based on per unit costs of both <br />$80,000 and $85,000. The Administrator reported that the key changes in the <br />estimates from what was presented last week include increasing capitalized <br />interest to 18 months, an increase in the general obligation tax exempt bond <br />interest rate to 5.5 percent, and adding general obligation components for <br />Housing Revenue Bonds at 6.5% and G.O. Taxable Tax Increment Bonds at <br />7.5%. The Administrator pointed out that based on these changes, the analysis <br />that utilizes an $80,000 cost per unit shows a deficit in the first ten years, with <br />the positive returns beginning in year eleven. The Administrator noted that he <br />did not change rent assumptions from what was presented last week. The <br />Administrator further noted that the $85,000 cost per unit analysis was put <br />together to allow for the potential of more improvements in common areas. <br />That analysis does not show a positive balance over the course of the financing <br />term. <br />The Administrator noted the potential for offsetting some of the land costs <br />given the fact that a recent bond issue included these costs. If $500,000 in land <br />costs are absorbed, that would reduce expenses by about $50,000 per year. <br />