11-09-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council November 9, 1988 Water Tower Blesener r•eported that the 4later• Boar•d meets Monday to discuss the proposed P.epairs new contract with Little Canada, and. the City will have mor~e infor~mation on (Cont.) the status after that meeting. alesener• reported that repair•s on the water~ tower could not be begun until next fall since there will be a lot of preparation wor•k involved in getting r•eady for those repairs an~ in changes that will be necessar•y in the City's system to continue water ser~vice to the citizens of Little Canada. Blesener repor•ted that the time to cor•r~ect the defects in the water tower is now, before the defects become major. Blesener felt the only choice the City had in the matter was how the r~epair•s will be paid for. Bond Sale Br•ad Far•nham of Juran & Moody appear~ed befor~e the Council to present the TIF details of the Tax Increment Financing bond sale for• the Larry Lee pr•oject Larry Lee on Centerville Road. Agenda Farnham r•eported that during the day he has had sever•al conversations about Item No. 5 the bond sale since concern was expressed that the tenant for Mr~. Lee's building has filed Chapter 13. During the course of these conversations Mr. Lee has assured him that the tenant he has proposed for~ the building is not the same company which has filed Chapter 13. Ther•efore, Far•nham is r~ecommending that the bond sale can pr~oceed. Blesener• repor•ted that he r~ead an article in the newspaper regarding the Chapter 13 filing and bought this matter~ to the attention of City staff. Blesener pointed out that even though the City is dealing with Lar~ry Lee in this bond sale, he had concerns since TIF is supposed to assist in br•inging additional jobs into the City. However, Blesener• r~epor~ted that he has been reassured by Dan ldilson and Lar•r~y Lee that Mr•. Lee's tenant is not the same company which filed Chapter 13. Mr. Far•nham reviewed the details of the bond sale which is being bid on by Jur~an & Moody. These details are outlined in Jur~an ~ Moody's letter to the City dated November• 9, 1988 as well as a Cash Flow Analysis of the General Obligation Tax Incr•ement Bonds of 1988 in the amount of $200,000. Fahey asked if ther•e were not other companies that the City should have offer~ed the bonds to for~ bidding. Fahey asked if the City was getting the best interest rate since only one bid has been submitted. The City Cler•k pointed out that the bond sale is not a public one, but a negotiated bond sale with Juran & Moody the only buyer. Far•nham pointed out that large bond issues ar•e competitively bid. However•, the small issues ar•e negotiated in or~der~ to save the City fees. Farnham reported that if this bond sale were competitively bid, the fees could range between $8,000 and $10,000. It would also take about 60 days to complete the process. Farnham r•epor•ted that in a negotiated sale, it is typical for Juran & Moody to buy the bonds themselves. However•, Far~nham also reported.that ther•e is a step in between the negotiated sale and competitive bidding pr~ocess, however, the costs to the City for that type of sale would still r~ange between $1,200 or more. Page -8-