Laserfiche WebLink
since then. What you have now is a <br />simple interest loan with an <br />amortization requirement and <br />interest is calculated on the basis <br />of a percentage of prime. It's not <br />like refinancing a fixed rate <br />mortgage. The risk to the City is <br />that the prime rate will rise above <br />8.25%. <br /> <br />Sisk: <br /> <br />Briggs: <br /> <br />Davidson: <br /> <br />On the other hand we would have that <br />paid off in 1996. Whereas if we pay <br />it off now we're really extending <br />our obligation on that $80,000.00. <br /> <br />The way that I would propose to <br />structure the refunding Bonds would <br />be to keep the same principle <br />amortization that the City has now <br />on each of these six separate <br />transactions, so that no principle <br />maturity is extended. I don't think <br />that makes sense for you at all. It <br />will result in a funny looking Bond <br />issue. It's going to be a little <br />lumpy in terms of debt service. <br />It's going to have a lot of <br />principle packed toward the front <br />that in a more typical bond issue <br />you wouldn't. But, I think that it <br />is what that makes the most sense <br />for the City. Technically, that <br />shortens the average life, which <br />reduces the interest costs and <br />provides additional savings. We <br />will not extend the principle of any <br />of these outstanding leases. <br /> <br />When the Finance Committee analyzed <br />this at its meeting yesterday, we <br />asked the City Administrator to look <br />into unspent funds held over from <br />prior years to see if that lease <br />could be paid off rather than <br />included as part of this Bond <br />refunding. The City Administrator <br />informed me, today that there is held <br />over reserve from a prior year that <br />has adequate funding to pay this <br />lease off. The Finance Committee is <br />proposing to continue with Question <br />No. 1 & 2, but eliminate Question <br /> <br /> <br />