My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2011_1010
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
CC_Minutes_2011_1010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/26/2011 9:55:35 AM
Creation date
10/26/2011 9:55:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/10/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, October 10, 2011 <br /> Page 7 <br /> • nancial tool for the City and the advantages of this option in lowing administra- <br /> tive efforts in the initial development of the program, and allowing for more flex- <br /> ibility relative to improvements compared to abatement bonds as another option; <br /> as well as a lower overall cost for issuing the bonds. Mr. Malinen advised that <br /> staff continued to work with bond counsel in developing the bond issue, and ad- <br /> vised that their recommendation was to amend the City's Redevelopment Plan <br /> and Industrial Development District No. 1 Plan as indicated to provide more spe- <br /> cificity and a tentative timeline for implementation. <br /> Councilmember McGehee provided her perspective on State Statute and how a <br /> Port Authority was set up as far as governance and actual authority; who would <br /> serve as the Board, whether the City Council, or a separate non-elected body; and <br /> differentiations between a Port Authority and an HRA. <br /> City Manager Malinen, in response to Councilmember McGehee, advised that the <br /> City's bond counsel may be more adept at responding to Councilmember McGe- <br /> hee's questions; and would be available to do so on October 24, 2011, the pro- <br /> posed Public Hearing date. At this time, Mr. Malinen noted, bond counsel could <br /> answer questions of the City Council and the public as part of their presentation. <br /> Councilmember McGehee opined that the information provided in tonight's <br /> agenda packet was insufficient to allow her to make a determination and to clearly <br /> understand what was being requested. <br /> City Manager Malinen reiterated that tonight's request was simply to schedule a <br /> Public Hearing to facilitate that more detailed public discussion. <br /> Mayor Roe concurred; and asked if there would be an additional Public Hearing <br /> opportunity by the Port Authority to hear comments related to issuing bonds, fol- <br /> lowing the October 24, 2011 Public Hearing at the City Council level, and before <br /> their issue. <br /> City Manager Malinen, with confirmation by Finance Director Chris Miller, re- <br /> sponded that there would not be an additional Hearing. <br /> City Manager Malinen confirmed that the proposed October 24, 2011 Public <br /> Hearing would deal with the $27 million in bonds proposed, even though they <br /> were actually three (3) separate bonds. <br /> To make it clear to the public on the purpose of the proposed bond issue, and in <br /> case bond counsel confirms that this will be the only Public Hearing before is- <br /> suing those bonds, Mayor Roe recommended language revisions to the draft reso- <br /> lution (Attachment A) as follows and the Public Notice itself as follows: <br /> Resolution: Lines 96-99, amend to read: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.