My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
06/22/2005 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2005
>
06/22/2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2014 3:50:59 PM
Creation date
1/17/2014 12:31:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
06/22/2005
Council Meeting Type
Work Session Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City of Lino Lakes <br />YMCA Financing Options <br />June 22, 2005, page 2 <br />We have been asked to recommend options for financing the City's $1,500,000 share of the <br />facility and to discuss options and considerations related to the $2,500,000 to be financed by <br />the YMCA. <br />Financing the City's Portion of the Facility <br />The City has committed to share in the project by financing $1,500,000 of the project cost. In <br />order to obtain the authority to bond, there are three viable options the City may consider: <br />1) Referendum General Obligation (GO) Backed Bonds <br />a. The City could ask the voters to approve the sale of bonds, however, the City has <br />already committed to the $1,500,000 payment. The City is financing only 20% of <br />the total project cost and, in return, will have a recreation facility to serve the <br />community. A referendum is expensive, time consuming and unnecessary as <br />there is already authority for the City to carry out its commitment (as noted in the <br />other options presented herein). Referendum bonds would be subject to debt <br />limits but would allow the City to obtain GO backing and lower interest rates as a <br />result. <br />2) Lease Revenue Bonds issue by the City <br />a. In our report written in 1999, we recommended Lease Revenue Bonds for up to <br />$1,000,000 to avoid inclusion in debt limit calculations with the remaining <br />$500,000 paid from cash. If the City is able to reduce debt by using cash on hand <br />the bond issue may be outside of debt limits. If not, the City's debt as a <br />percentage of market value would grow from .86% to about .95 %. This is well <br />below the 2% State cap. Lease Revenue Bonds would also result in higher <br />interest rates as the bonds would be Lease Bonds without GO backing. While <br />this tool is a viable option, the ability to issue abatement bonds (see item 3 <br />below) for community centers has evolved since we last studied the financing for <br />this project and may be a more appropriate fit to the City's needs. <br />3) Abatement Bonds <br />a. The City has used abatement for public improvements in the past. This tool <br />allows the City to issue GO Abatement Bonds repaid from a special tax levy <br />outside of levy limits (should they be reinstated). Authority for the abatement is <br />obtained by identifying properties that benefit from the public improvement to be <br />financed. If the City's share of annual taxes generated by these properties equals <br />or exceeds the annual debt service, an abatement may be created by resolution. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.