CC 11-28-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutell of Regular Council Meeting Monday, November 28, 1983 Page Five 2. To, hope fully, fund all three at one time and th~llholcl the funds in the trustee aecount until such time all they can be dispersed, because that would fall within our sequencing schedule. Hi cks asked Mr. Weir if he is !>aying that the project is not economically feasible with IRB financing on ~hase I and not on . Phases II and III. Weir said, that is cP,rrect" not at this time: they have been unable to make the numbers work. . Hick!> asked Mr. Weir if he intends to persue funding all th ree phases now, rather than waiting to see what happens to the pending Ie g18 Ill. tion. Weir said "Yes, we like to proceed with a lot of care and caution; are not eager to stick our necks ~ut and create something that the City, our investors and ourselves are not happy wi th." McAllister asked Mr. De ans why Congress is considering this Ie gis,- lat ion; asked what effect the IRBs are having .on the national budget; why is it in Con gress at all? Deans answered that when the re is a tax deduct ,mortgage, there is a loss to the federal treasury. McAllis te r said this is what she thought, the tax payers are helping to finance these projects. Deans said there are arguments on both sides; there are counter balances. McAllister asked Mr. Weir why he doesn't wait until the 1st of the year, or when Congress gets the dates established, and then go fo rward. Weir explained that the myriad of details, and the multit..de of people involved, and the tremendous c os t s that are in vol ve d (front end fees) all take a lot of time. If it we re just an agreement we cou'1d execute" it would be great, we can' t go to a financial institution for a Letter of Credit until we have the support of the Council. Weir said the re are two str'Ong sides to the issue of whether the re is a loss of money to the federal 'treasury; explained that it is true the in te res t on the bonds is exempt from income -- tax, but the legal fees, underwriting discounts, contruction payrolls, permanent payrolls are all taxab Ie; noted that pension funds hold a lot of home owne rs · mortgages and are taken as a personal deduction on income tax. McAllister said she also does not believe the project will create new jobs; feels they will be moved from somewhe re else. McAllister asked Mr. Prince why he fee ls January 1, 1984 will not be the cut-off date. Prince .aid administration would be difficult to put in place for all the states by January 1st; seems unlikely in an ehction year Mulcahy asked Mr. Weir, if he feels he can begin digging right away, if he gets Council approval. Weir said they are in the . position to )pull the Building Permit tomorrow morning; with all the snow it is up in the air whether we'll be on the site within the week; noted that the snow does protect the ground from frost we do intend to start promptly. . Woodburn asked Mr. Deans to enlighten Council on the te rm of the bond - 20 years - 30 years; noted that the maximum we give for City bonds is 15 years for things as permanent as this. Deans said this is bas ically a marketing question, an un de r- writer determination; investors will look in to this and determine what they can sell. Deans said with a 1001 enhancer there would be no possibility of default. ~'~"