Laserfiche WebLink
DRAFT Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, October 10,2011 <br /> Page 10 <br /> 1 vestors in holding those bonds. Mr. Miller advised that a more straightforward <br /> 2 bond issue, other than park Abatement or CIP Bond issues that were less familiar <br /> 3 to investors, avoided premium bidding of those investors that would drive up <br /> 4 costs, often up to a quarter of a percent, creating significant increased interest on a <br /> 5 bond issue of$27 million for the park improvements and fire station. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 Mayor Roe asked Finance Director Miller to respond to the meaning of bank-in- <br /> 8 a"bank qualified"bond issue. <br /> 9 <br /> 10 Mr. Miller responded that for a bond issue to be "bank qualified," it meant that <br /> 11 the City issued no more than $10 million in bonds annually, allowing smaller <br /> 12 banks to bid on those bonds, and driving bid rates down with more bidders in the <br /> 13 pool. Mr. Miller advised that the urgency in staff bringing this issue forward at <br /> 14 this time and with this timeframe, was to proceed with the first issue in 2011 and <br /> 15 save taxpayer dollars, estimated to be around $1 million. Mr. Miller advised that <br /> 16 this straightforward type of issue was favorably looked upon by investors, and <br /> 17 was relatively risk free for them, again serving to drive bid rates down. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 Finance Director Miller, at the request of Councilmember McGehee, further ad- <br /> 20 dressed the difference in issuing the bonds by using the Port Authority versus the <br /> 21 city Council issuing the bonds, based on whether or not a referendum was used to <br /> 22 issue the bonds; noting that the City Council majority had voted in the recent past <br /> 23 to not proceed to referendum, setting up this scenario of staff bringing forward <br /> 24 their recommendation. <br /> 25 <br /> 26 Councilmember McGehee requested additional information on the difference be- <br /> 27 tween a General Obligation bond issued by a Port Authority versus a City Coun- <br /> 28 cil; and clarity for her reading of Port Authority statutes related to any contracts <br /> 29 over $1,000 handled through a Best Value Procurement process or by a formal <br /> 30 bidding process. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Mayor Roe advised that Councihnember McGehee's question, as well as any oth- <br /> 33 ers submitted by individual Councilmembers, could be answered as part of the <br /> 34 October 24, 2011 Public Hearing and addressed by bond counsel and/or staff at <br /> 35 that time. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Mayor Roe called the question for the motion, as amended: <br /> 38 Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10940 (Attach- <br /> 39 went A) entitled, "Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on the Proposed Adop- <br /> 40 lion of a Modified Redevelopment Plan and Industrial Development District No. 1 <br /> 41 Plan for Redevelopment Project Area and Industrial Development District No. 1," <br /> 42 scheduled for Monday, October 24, 2011; and amended as follows, subject to <br /> 43 bond counsel review, or through comparable language at the recommendation <br /> 44 of bond counsel: <br /> 45 Resolution: Lines 96-99, amend to read: <br />