City Council Minutes 2014 07 01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes July 1,2014 Page 17 of 31 considered a separate entity. It will be recorded and the Urban Renewal District Fund is a component of the City and will be reflected in the records, but will not be a debt of the City and will not affect the City's bond rating. Council member Stolzmann asked what the City's liability is if the bonds are not repaid. City Attorney Light explained in the Cooperation Agreement the City and the LRC agreed before the LRC could issue debt they would have to get City Council's approval. It does not change that the LRC is a separate entity. The bonds to be issued will have a limited pledge and the only revenue pledged to the bonds are TIF revenue received from the TIF boundary area and there will be additional language that the debt will not be an obligation of the City. Council member Lipton asked if the bonds are backed by the entire Urban Renewal District. City Attorney Light stated the pledged revenue is for the proposed boundaries for the core area and not the entire renewal area. Council member Stolzmann stated Council is being asked to increase the bond cap, without knowing the value of the project within the core area. Economic Development Director DeJong explained because the current property value has gone up in Louisville, and possible added development (Tebo and Boom properties), the financial advisor felt there was justification for raising the bond amount by $500.000 and the LRC agreed. PUBLIC COMMENT John Leary, 1116 LaFarge Avenue, Louisville, CO urged Council to use full due diligence in considering this project. He provided a brief history of how he remembers the urban renewal process for new members of Council. One consultant projected $77.5 million and there was a suggestion of putting South Boulder Road under the railroad, but there was no due diligence. Another consultant projected the actual bonding capacity was $10 - $14 million. He felt it was unconscionable for the City Council to vote 5 -2 against a fiscal analysis. Another analysis showed the City would see a return on their investment at the end of the century. He was troubled by the response it did not matter what the project cost and felt it was irresponsible when using tax dollars. He stated the public has a right to know what tax dollars are used for. He asked if Council could rely on the current market and urged Council to acquire an independent assessment on the assumptions before acquiring the bonds. He outlined two keys components for review: 1) The property values, and 2) Is the absorption schedule reasonable. The LRC discounted the need for an independent assessment on the assumptions. He addressed the discussion on DELO purchasing the bonds and felt if there is any agreement between DELO and a bonding company should be made public. He referred to a Denver Urban Renewal publication, which stated the purpose of Urban Renewal is