01-11-1984 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Joseph Chlebeck January 4, 1984 Page 4 As shown above, the two year change to the term of the assessment rolls (years) and the 1983 prepayments make a significant difference in the level of special assessment interest earnings. These assessments carry interest at 10% per annum. A portion of this variance ($74,918) is offset by the additional invest- ment interest earnings. However, investment earnings have been calculated at 5 -1/2% as opposed to the 10% assessment interest. The $48,000 increase to the property taxes is the net result of the other variances. This increase was made as one tax levy to be collected in 1995. Accordingly, the City can monitor this fund (over the term of the bond issue) and if this levy is not needed (i.e. collections above 95% or investment yields above 5- 1/2%), the City may cancel this one additional tax levy. As shown by the above data, we have totally re- examined this bond issue based upon all current data. The primary reason for this re- examination was the errors contained in the original package. However, our re- examination went further than was needed just to resolve the errors. We re- examined the Bond Resolution to compensate for the original errors, plus: 1. Actual assessment rolls adopted to date rather than the estimated amounts as of last March. 2. Assessment interest based upon actual rolls adopted to date rather than estimated amounts as of last March. 3. Decreased assessment interest based upon actual prepayments to date. 4. Increased assessment interest based upon actual additional first year interest on rolls adopted to date plus estimates for the rolls to be adopted. 5. Assessment interest over 10 years rather than the original projected 12 years. The above events would have occurred even if the original Bond Resolution had been correct. By re- examining this bond issue at this time (and to the extent that we did), we have resolved these problems now rather than later. Accordingly, the City is better off for these problems being resolved now rather than later. I have reviewed the proposed Amended Resolution with Steve and Brad from Juran & Moody, Inc. At the time of such review, they were still working with the approving attorney to work out some final details. Assuming that those details get worked out, we can consider this matter resolved, subject to the following actions: