CC_Minutes_2011_1017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 17,2011 Page 22 Ms. Ippel responded that, while she was unsure of the specific project at the time, the City requested those powers and the legislature granted it in many cases. Ms. Ippel advised that, to her knowledge, 1990 was the first time the City utilized it with the NCR Comten project, for financial assistance to retain and add jobs; and also to purchase land that was used for parks. Ms. Ippel noted that as part of that first Port Authority project in Roseville, the City had also adopted a Redevelop- ment Plan and developed into parks and in 1991, that area was enlarged and the City put together a loan program for the purpose of providing rehabilitative im- provements to single-family and multi-family housing in the City, using its Port Authority powers and incorporating redevelopment powers under the State's HRA law. Mayor Roe confirmed that this was prior to the City establishing its Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA); which was estimated by Councilmember Pust to be established in approximately 2003. Ms. Ippel advised that the City's HRA also had powers as well as the City Coun- cil under the HRA powers and under its mission under Port Authority law. Councilmember Willmus questioned what the City's overall bonding capacity was, given its current outstanding debt. Mr. Miller responded that the City could issue up to $89 million worth of debt, based on its taxable level under State Statute. Ms. Ippel noted that this bond issue under Port Authority would be excluded from the City's debt limit, or any other public convenience from which a revenue is or may be derived, with revenues generated from recreational facilities not taken into account. Ms. Ippel noted, for example, that the City Hall didn't count against the City's debt capacity, since it didn't generate revenue; and even a fire station is a public convenience even though revenue can be received. In Minnesota, Ms. Ip- pel advised that more important and what controlled the debt was how the rating agencies took into consideration how much debt a City should have rather than how much the City could finance. Councilmember Pust questioned what those rating agencies think a city should have in debt. Mr. Miller responded that there was no straight answer, given a number of va- riables, and while he would never recommend that the City carry $89 million in debt, the City's debt load would be a factor, based on the City's ability to repay that debt over the next 20-30 years as rating agencies reviewed the City now and in the future.