CC_Minutes_2009_0608 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, June 08, 2009 Page 6 a. Public Hearing to Consider a Resolution for the Imposition and Collection of Fees in the Housing Improvement Area for Westwood Village I (HF0052) Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon introduced the purpose of the Public Hearing in considering a Resolution for the Imposition and Collection of Fees in the Housing Improvement Area for Westwood Village I (HF0052). Mr. Trudgeon summarized the background and requested action as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated June 8, 2009; stressing that the new resolution had been modified to not allow for payoffs of the assessment after bonds are is- sued, based on the advice of the City's financial consultant, Springsted, due to market unknowns of how many pay offs could happen over a period of time after bond issuance and potential shortfalls and impacts from early payoff for the Westwood Village I debt service reserves. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the new resolution allowed for no early pay offs once the bonds were placed; but that there were no changes in the assessment amount or allocation of assessments. Steven Bubul, Attorney with Kennedy & Graven (470 U.S. Bank Plaza, Mpls., MN), legal counsel for City of Roseville Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), detailed the financial considerations of the resolution and the proposed General Obligation Bond issue, since the previously-passed resolution in January of 2009, as a result of further discussions and negotiations between the City and the Association Board in drafting the Development Agreement between the two parties. Discussion among Mr. Bubul, staff and Councilmembers included the process for scheduled interest and principal payments and potential risks and/or impacts to both parties and the City's taxpayers; options available to Association homeown- ers for prepayment, those already having prepaid and those wishing to do so at this time, limited to at least 25% within 45 days after adoption of the resolution; experiences of other cities in similar Housing Improvement Act (HIA) projects; and administrative costs and reimbursement to the City by the Association. Further discussion included acknowledgement that 9 of the 47 units had prepaid the assessment to-date; ramifications to new buyers of the existing units for the outstanding assessment and inability to prepay it at the time of purchase of the units for those new buyers; and clarification of the bond issue as General Obliga- tion and specifics of the issue. Councilmember Ihlan expressed her concern with issuance of General Obligation Bonds with the full faith and credit of the City and its taxpayers; prohibition against prepayment after the 45 day period with 7.75% interest for the 15 years of the Bond term; and concerns with potential impacts on unit owners who may find themselves in default on their mortgages based on market conditions or changing personal economics. Councilmember Ihlan opined that this Bond issue had too many risks for taxpayers as well as property owners at Westwood Village I.