Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council <br />Study Session Summary <br />December 11 , 2007 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br />Councilor Sackett asked where the money would come from to pay back the <br />bond. Mr. Cole stated that it would come from property taxes of the owners in the <br />District. <br /> <br />Councilor Marsella inquired who votes on establishing a Metro District. Mr. Brew <br />said in the case of RMCS would vote as they are the only property owners at this <br />time. Councilor Marsella asked why someone would buy from RMCS when it <br />would add over $100/monthly to the property tax bill compared with any other <br />development in the area. Mr. Brew stated that the Metro District would allow <br />RMCS to lower the price to the buyer through the savings. <br /> <br />Councilor Marsella wanted to know what happens if the development does not <br />take place. Mr. Cole explained that debt is a limited obligation debt so that if <br />development does not happen or assess then the bond holders would have to <br />accept a lower return. Keri Bartow, Gunner & Andros Investments, stated that the <br />funds were held in a trust. <br /> <br />Councilor Clabots asked it a long-term phase project worked within a Metro <br />District Service Plan. Mr. Brew stated that the plan was submitted to the bond <br />issuer at the time of application. <br /> <br />Mayor Sisk stated that he had concerns with Metro Districts in general. He said <br />that although the Metro District has its own mil levies and is a separate entity if <br />the development fails it still impacts the City's image. He referred to the Metro <br />Districts that failed in during the 90's. Mr. Cole explained the problems of the 90's <br />were there was too much debt and that developments were getting too far ahead. <br />He said that new laws governing Metro Districts do not allow for that kind of debt <br />to occur. Alan Matlows went on to say that the changes in 1992 involved 1) who <br />could be an investor, 2) limits the amount debt extended, and 3) places on a cap <br />on mil levies. Mr. Matlows said that there is always risk with development <br />whether there is a Metro District or not. <br /> <br />Councilor Yarnell asked if the commitment to improvements were defined in the <br />Service Plan. Mr. Brew replied they were and went on to clarify that the Service <br />Plan was not a mechanism for the market. <br /> <br />City Attorney Light commented that the City already has a Subdivision Process <br />that covers improvements and that it would be important that the Service Plan <br />does not negate the Subdivision Process. He went on to say that a Metro District <br />would need to fit the City Plan but could be an incentive for developers. He also <br />commented that residents of a Metro District are constituents of Metro District as <br />well as the City even though they are split entities. <br /> <br />Councilor Sackett inquired if the Revitalization Commission has used this format <br />or if they could. City Attorney Light said that they have not but that it could be <br />used. <br /> <br />3. Update - Economic Development <br />