Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Study Session - 07/19/04 <br />Minutes - Page 15 <br /> <br />before. Mr. Miller noted that, while the City has a number of <br />"pay-as-you-go," ten year TIF districts over the last 10 - 15 <br />years, this proposal is for a 20 - 25 year term, with substantial <br />increase in revenue and entailing more risk. Mr. Miller noted <br />that the Council would be asked to change the past norm and <br />change their policy. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding whether special legislation was <br />required, with staff responding negatively; past consideration of <br />special legislation due to compressed tax rates; use of General <br />Obligation (GO) bonds and applicable risk and mitigation of risk <br />to the City; the magnitude of the proposed project; market value <br />generated versus TIF provided; and potential risk to the City with <br />bond issuance versus "pay-as-you-go" provisions. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller offered to provide comparables to the City Council to <br />provide guidance and additional information on actual taxes <br />generated on past TIF projects. <br /> <br />Further discussion ensued related to immediate and/or delayed <br />benefits (i.e., additional housing stock, jobs and business) to the <br />City related to the amount of TIF provided; agreement language <br />to provide mechanisms for developer to cost share shortfalls; and <br />impacts to the City's overall debt and credit rating. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller noted that the City had been paying off their existing <br />outstanding debt of approximately $17 Million at an accelerated <br />rate. Mr. Miller further noted that even in undertaking a project <br />of this size, for a city the size of, and with a tax base of <br />Roseville, the debt per capita was well below the norm and <br />remained manageable. <br /> <br />Further discussion ensued regarding how the Council defined <br />who benefited from the proposed redevelopment; bonding <br />referendums related to the proj ect; and preferences for bond <br />types (i.e., General Obligation; and/or TIF General Obligation <br />Bonds); and the nature of the pledge to cover the bond issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller noted that bond rating agencies look at how a City <br />manages its debt; how they plan to payoff the debt; and what is <br />being accomplished with the debt. Mr. Miller advised that the <br />