Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
DRAFT Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,October 10,2011 <br /> Page 9 <br /> 1 her understanding that the City Council would still be the decision-makers of how <br /> 2 and when bond funds were used. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Councilmember Johnson noted that the abatement bond schedule was a very strict <br /> 5 process; however, this process provided a more fluid way to make spending deci- <br /> 6 sions related to park improvement implementation. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 At the request of Councilmember Pust regarding the City Council making those <br /> 9 decisions, Councilmember Johnson noted that the City Council had already ap- <br /> 10 proved the Park and Recreation Master Plan, and that it was driving those changes <br /> 11 that had already been approved. <br /> 12 <br /> 13 I Councilmember Pust sough sought assurance that everyone was in agreement that <br /> 14 the City Council would still be voting on future expenditure of those funds. <br /> 15 <br /> 16 City Manager Malinen advised that the City Council had provided staff with the <br /> 17 direction to issue bonds for park improvements and a new fire station; and that <br /> 18 staff was following that direction in arranging for financing of those improve- <br /> 19 ments and projects as called for. Related to the Fire Station, Mr. Malinen noted <br /> 20 that, while the City Council had concurred with the study(ies) conducted to-date <br /> 21 and authorized moving forward, there would be multiple steps in proceeding, in- <br /> 22 eluding, for example, architects would return for City Council approval of plans, <br /> 23 and public bidding processes would need to be followed as well. Related to park <br /> 24 improvements, Mr. Malinen advised that the City Council had provided directed <br /> 25 on the Park Improvement Plan (PIP) and blanket approval to move forward with <br /> 26 Implementation Step One, and any expenditures over $5,000 would return to the <br /> 27 City Council for approval. Mr. Malinen noted that the bond issue itself and the <br /> 28 implementation process as well would return for City Council approval before- <br /> 29 hand. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 Roe moved, Pust seconded, a friendly amendment as previously outlined by <br /> 32 Mayor Roe, or comparable language, subject to approval by bond counsel. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 As makers of the motion, Councilmembers Johnson and Willmus accepted the <br /> 35 friendly amendment; with Mayor Roe thus withdrawing his motion. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Councilmember McGehee questioned Finance Director Miller on bond counsel <br /> 38 fees for different types of bond issues; with Mr. Miller responding that the type of <br /> 39 bond was not the question,but the complexity of the bond issue. <br /> 40 <br /> 41 Councilmember McGehee questioned why staff was recommending using the <br /> 42 City's Port Authority and why those interest rates were lower. <br /> 43 <br /> 44 Finance Director Miller advised that, specific to the type of bond financing and <br /> 45 why it saved taxpayer dollars, it was due to the level of interest of institutional in- <br />