Laserfiche WebLink
Case #1: <br /> <br />Lease Revenue Bonds for Municipal Center <br /> <br />Assistant City Administrator Nelson presented information about the bonding process that would <br />fund the construction of the new Municipal Center. She explained that the City Council had <br />made a motion at the January 25, 2005 council meeting in favor of constructing and funding the <br />Municipal Center through the Lease Revenue Bond process. She also indicated that the <br />resolutions presented to the EDA would start the process needed to implement the Lease <br />Revenue Bond financing structure for the Municipal Center project. It was noted that the final <br />costs were still under consideration due to the fact that bids were not let at this time. <br /> <br />Member Elvig commented that the Lease Revenue Structure of the bonds would allow the bond <br />levy to be spread over the commercial and :residential tax base. The other types of financing <br />would be restricted to the residential properties. <br /> <br />Assistant City Administrator Nelson noted that the information differentiating the funding <br />methods was an attachment to the case. <br /> <br />Finance Director Lund stated that the Lease Revenue Bond structure was the same method of <br />financing that was used for Fire Station No. 1 <br /> <br />Member Gromberg questioned whether this project would be considered a redevelopment site. <br /> <br />Member Elvig stated the Bond Council had drafted the documents and that it was their opinion <br />that this project was within the law. <br /> <br />Chair Riley commented that CIP Bonds were available to fund City Hall Projects and that the <br />Lease Revenue Bond method is used to circumvent the referendum process. Chair Riley also <br />disagreed with the redevelopment definition. Riley also commented that development would <br />occur regardless of the City putting in a new Municipal Center. <br /> <br />Member Elvig stated that the City participation in this project is why the development is <br />happening and that the Municipal Center would be more City participation. <br /> <br />Member Strommen acknowledge that development would probably occur without the Municipal <br />Center but questioned the quality of that development and its overall fit to the Town Center <br />planning. <br /> <br />Member Riley asked if Section I. sub heading B (Statement) could be removed from the <br />Redevelopment Plan for Municipal Center Project dated March 9, 2005 could be removed due to <br />its definition of redevelopment. It was also requested that the Bond Attorney review the <br />documentation or attend the meeting for explanations. <br /> <br />Member Keifer stated the laws are based on previous rulings and that this type of financing has <br />been done for this type of project in the past. To this point he was not aware of any legal <br />challenges to this type of project. <br /> <br />Economic Development Authority/February 2, 2005 <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />