Laserfiche WebLink
The consensus of the EDA was to tlirectStaffto :d~aft a recommendation for a Revolving Loan <br />Fund policy addressing the key areas of interest rate and job creation, and removing retail <br />businesses as eligible for the fundsl <br /> <br />Member Gromberg noted there is a lOt of f'manCing available for fixed assets. Member <br />Strommen commented this fund should be filling gaps as much as possible. <br /> <br />Economic Development/TIF Specialist sUlliVan ~dicated staff will bring a recommendation for <br />a policy on the Revolving Loan FUnd back t6 the EDA for review. He noted the company he met <br />with yesterday will be submitting ~ proPosa[toreceive Revolving Loan Funds. He asked if the <br />EDA would like to review proposals for the fund until the policy is drafted. The EDA members <br />responded in the affirmative. <br /> <br />Member EIvig requested the EDA receiVe c6pies of past proposals for the funds for review. <br /> <br />Case #4: Lease Revenue Bonds <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman explained althOUgh the Council has not formally acted on the <br />construction of the new municipal center,.it has been discussed that lease revenue bonds would <br />be the preferred method of financing. The Council:recommended last night that there be formal <br />action taken on the Municipal Center at thenext, meeting. He indicated lease revenue bonds are <br />the method cities use to build this type of facility, i <br /> <br />Finance Officer Lund explained goneral obligation :bonds require the passing of a referendum. <br />CIP bonds are subject to reverse referendUm a _nd the financing can be revoked by five percent of <br />the voters signing a petition againstthe project; The whole project would then need to be <br />repeated and brought back to the EDA in the form of lease revenue bonds. This would result in <br />the cost of the public hearings as well as the cost of the rates going up. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman indicated once there is:a referendum this type of vote is notorious for <br />getting voted down. The City need~ this bUi[ding and will have to go ahead with it anyway, <br />which would not be perceived well iby the pu~biie.. <br /> <br />Member Gromberg stated he has a problem with going ahead on the City Hall without informing <br />the people why it is needed. There should be apublic hearing, and the interest rates will not <br />fluctuate that much within the 30 days. <br /> <br />Chairperson Riley questioned the EDA's role in the municipal center. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig explained the CounciI has tried to receive public input on the municipal <br />facility twice with open houses that were publicized. Not one resident attended the open houses. <br />The other issue is the Council has lookedat what this means to the City and is still projecting no <br />tax increase with the new City Hal!. The COuncil~has also looked at the costs to add on the <br />current City Hall. He stated he is in firm belief that the City needs a new City Hall. He <br /> <br />Economic Development Au~thority/January 12, 2005 <br /> : :Phge 5 Of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />