My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Revitalization Commission Agenda and Packet 2014 09 08
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
REVITALIZATION COMMISSION
>
2004-2019 Revitalization Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2014 Revitalization Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Revitalization Commission Agenda and Packet 2014 09 08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 10:20:26 AM
Creation date
9/8/2014 10:34:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
RCPKT 2014 09 08
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Revitalization Commission <br />Minutes <br />August 11, 2014 <br />Page 3 of 6 <br />A question was raised as to how the multiple advance structure affects the <br />call protection and bond maturity. <br />DeJong and Attorney Light stated that the 7 year call protection begins at the <br />date of closing. <br />The second advance of bond proceeds does not extend TIF. 2033 is the last <br />year to collect TIF revenues. <br />Chair Becker asked Rick Brew if he is able to give the LRC an indication of <br />investor interest and whether there is risk of where interest rates will be in a <br />year. Rick Brew said there is interest in a 7% interest rate. Whoever invests <br />has to have faith RMCS can do the project. Things shouldn't change in 10 <br />months. Rick Brew indicated he understood the risk and was comfortable with <br />the time horizon. <br />Commissioner Lathrop asked about the inter - relationship with Tebo. Brew <br />said Tebo wants to build next year but RMCS's plans are not reliant on him to <br />build. Tebo needs the City to come to an agreement on zoning. <br />2. The bond will be payable from property tax increment revenues in the Core <br />Project Area based on a Property Tax base value as of 2012. As the pledged <br />revenues are received, the Commission will hold these revenues in the <br />Revenue Fund. After paying all the Senior Obligations (City IGA, South Street <br />IGA) and netting out the County IGA payments, the remaining Pledged <br />Revenues will be remitted to the Paying Agent five business days prior to <br />December 1St each year. <br />City Attorney Light said the amounts payable to the County under the County <br />IGA are not considered pledge revenue under the IGA and the bonds are not <br />a superior lien to the County obligations. <br />3. If there are insufficient Pledged Revenues to pay the interest on the bond on <br />any December 1st, this will not be an event of default. Interest that is earned <br />does not become capitalized interest. Rick Brew said that unpaid interest <br />should compound and earn interest. Attorney Light said the term sheet says <br />it is 7% simple interest, not compounded interest. <br />There was a discussion of simple interest vs. compound interest. Chair <br />Becker said the payment should match the term sheet. <br />Attorney Light said the term sheet says simple interest and interest unpaid in <br />2033 is discharged, and that under the cash flow structure of the TIF bond, <br />nonpayment of principal or interest at a payment date because of lesser TIF <br />revenues is not a basis of default. There are 3 parties with mutual interest in <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.