My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2010 02 02
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2010 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2010 02 02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:44:29 PM
Creation date
3/5/2010 2:29:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
2/2/2010
Original Hardcopy Storage
7D4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2010 02 02
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
<br />City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 2, 2010 <br />Page 6 of 8 <br /> <br />bonds). Tax exempt bonds prohibit a private activity benefiting from the bonds. It <br />was decided to payoff the bonds. Ordinance No. 1565, Series 2010 has nothing <br />to do with the golf course agreement. It was included in the 2009 budget to fund <br />the 2009 golf course deficit. Ordinance No. 1566, Series 2010 authorizes a <br />transfer of $800,000 from the Wastewater Utility Fund to the golf course fund to <br />payoff the bonds. The funds will be placed in escrow account and the bond <br />holders will receive payments from the escrow. It is a legal defeasance, which <br />means it is off the City books and no longer a legal debt of the City's. <br /> <br />PUBLIC COMMENT <br /> <br />Michael Menaker, 1827 W. Choke Cherry Drive, Louisville, CO stated the golf <br />course problems are apparent. He noted one way out of the current problem is to <br />provide a better product. He stated the two ordinances would transfer 1.170 <br />million dollars to the golf course with repayment in 2024 and 2026 and asked <br />what alternatives are proposed should the golf course fail. He felt the contract <br />was premature and noted it has not been published on the City's Web Site. He <br />felt the defeasance of the bonds should be conditioned with the passage of the <br />ordinances. He asked for clarification relative to the escrow account and asked <br />why the bond holders would not be paid now instead of in 2012. He asked why <br />the payback to the Wastewater Utility Fund will not begin until 2015. He was <br />concerned over 17 years with an uncertain interest rate. He felt the City would be <br />taking a significant risk. He asked if the Water and Wastewater Utility Fund has <br />excess funds available, is the City charging too much for their services. <br /> <br />Finance Director Watson explained the bond holders cannot be paid off <br />immediately because there are bond call provisions to protect the bond holders <br />and that is why the escrow account is set up. The bonds would be removed from <br />the City's books and placed with a third party and then paid off per their normal <br />schedule. <br /> <br />Councilor Muckle asked for a definition of defeasance. Finance Director Watson <br />explained defeasance is paying off the bonds or removing the legal liability from <br />the City. <br /> <br />City Attorney Light explained because there are call protections on the bonds, <br />they cannot pay them off early. The money would be put into an escrow account <br />earmarked for the entirety of the remaining funds to be paid under the normal <br />payment schedule established in 2002. He noted there are three more payments <br />to make. <br /> <br />Councilor Muckle inquired how the City will know whether the Water and <br />Wastewater Utility Fund dollars will be needed in the future. City Manager <br />Fleming stated one of the matters to be addressed is whether the funds should <br />come from the Water & Wastewater Utility Fund, the General Fund or the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.