Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES MARCH 30, 1998 <br />presented a schedule indicating how that bond would have been issued. Jerry presented <br />another schedule (Schedule "L") detailing a $1,790,000 General Obligation Improvement <br />Bond. He noted that the City currently has net bonded indebtedness of $8,500,000.Most <br />of this debt is supported by assessments.This leaves the City with a debt to market value <br />of 1 1/2% which is low for a community the size of Lino Lakes. Traditionally, the City <br />has bonded for projects over a short period of time and the bonds were paid back early. <br />The current Moody's rating for Lino Lakes is BAA1 which is very good. Jerry also said <br />that at this time the City is considering doubling its bonded debt. This is still conservative <br />for a city the size of Lino Lakes. <br />Chris asked if the City added six (6) million dollars of bonds for parks, can the City still <br />maintain its current rating. Jerry said yes. The City is looking at over a 10 million dollar <br />increase in its tax capacity rate at about 5%. This will result in a $112.00 a year increase <br />for a property owner whose property is valued at $150,000.00. The net debt of the City <br />would be 2% of its market value and the debt capacity would be 12 1/2 million dollars. <br />Jerry also noted that bonds paid by a source other than taxes or bonds issued by another <br />entity (EDA) do not count. Lease/revenue bonds (Centennial Fire Hall) would count. <br />Bonding for the civic complex will count. He further noted that the City would be <br />building tangible assets which will stimulate growth. The City already has a good track <br />record of growth. Investors and rating agencies do look at this. The City must structure its <br />debt so that it does not put an undo burden on the tax payers. <br />Kim asked if the bond rating is reevaluated each year. Jerry said no, only when the City <br />goes out for a bond sale. He also noted that if the community has not been out for bonds, <br />Springsted does its own review. Kim asked how far can the City go out for bonding. Jerry <br />explained it depends on how the City structures its debt. It was noted that the Charter <br />limits the bonding authority of the City. Jerry explained that if a city has a general <br />obligation debt, it has to be paid regardless of whether or not it is prohibited by the <br />Charter. <br />Chris said if the City tax capacity goes up 5% because of a bond, the reality is that it puts <br />a great burden on tax payers. Kim also noted that Centennial School District is planning <br />to go out for a bond. Chris felt that there is a policyquestion here. Mary said that the <br />Council will have to decide if they want to increase taxes because of the proposed bonds. <br />Jerry said the bonds could be "back loaded" so that the impact would not be so great. The <br />Council must decide if they really want to build what is being proposed and will this <br />construction really generate additional quality development. <br />John said that there are four (4) projects on the list that the City has committed to which <br />equals $3,000,000 to $4,000,000. There are two (2) projects left on the list, the Y and the <br />park needs. Andy said he supported anything that makes the City better. <br />Kim asked if the Council agreed that the Lakes Addition Street Improvement project and <br />the civic complex are committed to? Are the issues to be discussed the Y and the parks <br />referendum? Andy suggested putting off bonding for an athletic complex for one year. He <br />PAGE 6 <br />