Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-12-02 EURA MINUTES• • • I 10 ll u 1'P f1 ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY DECEMBER 2, 1987 I. CALL TO ORDER. 9 The regular meeting of the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority was called to order by Chairman Robert Voth at 5:35 P.M. Members present: Totton, VanDyke, Voth, Cole, Mcintyre, Minnick Alternate Member Hanson Executive Director Hinson Members absent: Keena Also present: Alternate Member Daugherty Harold Stitt , Assistant to EURA Director Paul Benedetti, Legal Counsel Ron Myles, EURA Negotiating Consultant Greg Johnson, Kutak, Rock & Campbell Steve Bell, E. F. Hutton Judy McBride, E. F. Hutton Bill Cunningham, Laventhol & Horwath Charles Langhoff, Managed Financial Services Andy Mccown, City Manager Densel Ragland, Director of Engineering Services Penny Dietrich, Executive Director of EDDA Council Members Bilo, Bradshaw, Higday, Kozacek, Vobejda Council Members Elect Ha benicht, Koltay T. Munds, Englewood Sentinel Ms. Keena entered the meeting just after the roll was called. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. November 4, 1987 Chairman Voth stated that the Minutes of November 4, 1987 were to be con- sidered for approval. Mcintyre moved: VanDyke seconded: The Minutes of November 4, 1987 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: VanDyke, None Minnick None Voth , Cole, Keena, Mcintyre, Totton The motion carried. Mr. Voth suggested that, inasmuch as there were so many people in attendance, each person introduce themselves . -1 - III. BOND REFUNDING/FINANCING Mr. Hinson stated that members of the City Council were invited to attend the meeting to be brought up-to-date with members of the Authority on the status of the proposed EURA bond refunding. Mr. Hinson stated that when the bids came in on the completion of the final phase of Little Dry Creek improvements, the bids exceeded the funds the Authority had available. City Council pledged in excess of $600,000 in Public Improvement Funds for use on the Little Dry Creek Project in the event the Urban Renewal Authority could not refund the tax increment bonds. Mr. Hinson stated that the possibility of refunding the tax increment bonds has been explored, and there are several advantages to doing the refunding: reducing the interest cost of the bonds over their life; reducing the amount of payment due in the early years until the revenues come in from the new retail development; and the provision of funds for contingen- cies such as settlement on outstanding law suits, and interim use of the 3400 block on South Acoma Street. Mr. Hinson stated that Mr. Bell and Ms. McBride have worked on the bond refunding analysis, and are prepared to discuss their findings with the Authority and Council. Mr. Bell stated that the refunding of the tax increment bonds now would reduce the interest rate paid by the Authority and provide necessary additional funds. Mr. Bell stated that a restructuring of the bond issue would give some flexibility to the Authority. Mr. Bell stated that one of the disadvantages of doing a refunding at this time, is that under the 1986 Tax Law the Authori- ty can refund only once prior to the call date on the bonds, which is 1990. Mr. Bell stated that the bonds were initially sold in 1985, and are non-rated bonds sold at about 11% interest. Today's interest rate is approximately 8%, and for the Authority with non-rated bonds the rate would probably have a 9.5% interest rate. This would be a considerable savings in interest cost. Mr. Bell stated that the firm of Laventhol & Horwath was retained to do an analysis on revenue projections for the bond refunding. It appears we are facing a decline in the revenue projections over what was projected at the time of the initial bond issue. He stated that they do feel the revenue pro- jections are realistic and reflect today's market. Mr. Bell discussed the restructuring of the debt, and the matter of coverage. Mr. Bell stated that for ease of marketability, a coverage of 140 to 150% is needed. The Authority will not have that percentage of coverage in the early years of the issue, and the bonds may be difficult to market for this reason. Mr. Bell stated that investors want, as a rule, 150% coverage on the debt ser- vice of an issue. Mr. Bell stated that they have looked at additional revenues that might be available that could be pledged to provide the addi- tional coverage needed for the bond issue. Mr. Bell stated that the City does have use tax revenues which are used to finance capital improvement projects in the city. They have discussed using these revenues as additional security pledged to the Authority to provide the coverage needed, even though it is unlikely the Authority would ever have to call for the actual use of these funds. Mr. Bell stated that after considerable analysis, three alternatives appear to be economically feasible. The first is private placement of the bonds with • • no additional pledge of security. This does not appear to be possible at this • time. The second alternative is refinancing the Authority's bonds (refunding) as has been discussed, with the pledge by the City of the use tax revenues to -2 - • • • provide additional coverage. The third alternative is to request the City of Englewood to issue use tax revenue bonds on the Authority's behalf and pur- chase a note from the EURA to provide for repayment of the debt service by the Authority. Mr. Bell stated that the interest due on the bonds would be capi- talized for the first seven years, until the Authority's revenues were suffi- cient to meet debt service requirements. There would be no obligation on the part of the City or the Authority for any cash outlay until approximately 1994. Mr. Totton asked if the figures advanced by Mr. Bell were based on the current dollar value. Mr. Cunningham of Laventhol & Horwath stated that they used a 3.5% annual growth in sales. Ms. Daugherty entered the meeting at 6:05 P.M. and took her chair with the members of the Authority. Mr. Bell stated that consideration had also been given to making use of the sales tax, which could not be done, and the impact of a sales tax on food. Ms. Keena asked what the use tax revenues were at the present time. Mr. Mccown estimated use tax revenues of $1,200,000. Ms. McBride pointed out that a portion of the use tax revenues are already pledged for other bond issues. Mr. Bell stated that if the City issues the use tax revenue bonds, they might be able to get a lower interest rate because of the City's standing in the bond market, and the bonds would also have a higher rating, resulting in a lower financing cost . Ms. Keena asked if the sales tax income increases dramatically with the new retail uses on board, could the Authority pay the City off early. Mr. Bell stated that the debt issue could be structured so that if the sales tax revenue increases so that the coverage is increased by a given percentage, the City could be released from the pledge. Mrs. Cole asked if a food tax were to be considered, would it have to be the total 3.5% as is common for other items purchased in the City, or could the food tax be 1% or 2%. Mr. Bell indicated that the amount of any tax is set by the City Council. He did point out that a food tax is a better source of in- come than use tax. Mr . Mccown asked why, in the projections done by Laventhol & Horwath on income projected from a possible food tax, food sales from Buyer's Club were not included. Mr. Cunningham stated that they had used only the food sales from the two grocery store chains, but if a food tax were to be implemented, sales from Buyer's Club would have to be included. Ms. Habenicht asked if the revenue projections took into account income that will be realized from the new development in the downtown project. Mr. Bell stated that projections did take into account estimated revenues from the new development. Mr. Mccown asked why the growth factor estimates were lowered from 5% to 3% in the projections. Mr. Cunningham stated that the growth factor for the metro area over the last couple of years has been closer to 3.5% than 5% which were their original projections when the bonds were initially issued . Mr. Bell further discussed the proposal for the City to issue Use Tax Revenue Bonds. This procedure would not allow the EURA to restructure the debt to -3 - reduce their payments in the early years of the project. But, the EURA would retain the option of doing a refunding in the future if needed. Mr. Bell stated that if this procedure is chosen, he would recommend structuring the • issue for a short term call. He pointed out that there would be no principal payment until 1994. Use Tax Revenue bonds could have an impact on the Capital Improvement Program financing. The City also could not issue further debt based on use tax revenues. Mr. Bell stated that it is the feeling of the financial advisory team that has been working on this that the use tax revenue bond issue is a viable alternative. Mr. Totton asked if the Authority requested the City issue Use Tax Revenue bonds, would this mean that the City could not do any further Capital Improve- ment Projects. Mr. Bell stated that the City could not use those revenues as the basis of further indebtedness. The City could, however, continue to issue general obligation bonds, bonds based on water revenues, sewer revenues, etc. Mrs. Cole asked how the use of a portion of the Use Tax Revenues if pledged as additional security for EURA bond refunding would impact the City. Ms. McBride stated that use tax revenues are used to finance street improvements. Ms. Keena asked if the use tax revenue bonds were issued, does this free up the $617,000 pledged by the City to the Authority on Little Ory Creek. Mr. Hinson stated that it does. Mr. Totton asked how the note between the EURA and the City would be struc- tured. Mr. Bell stated that it would be an EURA note that the City of Engle- wood would purchase. Ms. McBride stated that there would be no cash outlay required by the City or the Authority for seven years. Referring to the pledge of Use Tax revenues to enhance an Authority refunding issue, Mr. Kozacek stated that it appeared the City's hands would be tied on Capital Improvement Projects as long as the use tax funds are tied up. Mr. Bell stated that they would try to structure the issue so that the City would know before the end of the year what funds would be available for use. Mr. Kozacek asked if the City would realize any benefits from the sales tax incre- ments until 2003 when the bonds are paid off. Mr. Bell stated that the City would realize benefits from the sales tax when the debt is paid in full, or after 20 years, when the freeze on the tax base expires. Ms. Keena asked if the projections on revenue included the one-half of one percent sales tax increase for the length of the issue, or for a short term. Mr. Cunningham stated that the sales t ax increase was included in the projec- tions for the term of the issue. Discuss i on ensued on whether the City Coun- cil could repeal this sales tax increase prior to the end of the bond issue. Ms. VanOyke pointed out that the figures cited by Laventhol & Horwath are con- servative estimates . She suggested the possibility of a considerable increase in sales tax revenues when the new retail outlets are opened, which could facilitate the repeal of the sales tax increase earlier than the term of the bond issue. Mr. Mccown agreed that if the sales tax revenues pick up the 1/2% sales tax increase becomes less critical . Mr. Totton asked if there would be anything which would preclude paying the City back earlier than the term of the use tax revenue issue . Mr. Bell stated • that the issue could be structured so there would be no prepayment penalty on • the part of the Authority . -4 - • • • Mr. Hinson asked if there were further questions of Mr. Bell and Ms. McBride. Mr. Hinson stated that the Authority will have to ask the City Council to take some action to secure the refunding issue, to issue use tax revenue bonds, or to impose a sales tax on food sales. Ms. Habenicht referred to the graph depicting the current bond situation in the booklet submitted by Mr. Bell, and noted that it appeared the revenues would not cover the debt service for only the first three years. If this is the case, why is the refunding needed. Mr. Bell stated that the Authority needs approximately an additional 2.5 million to complete the Little Dry Creek Project, pay lawsuit settlements, and cover other outstanding operational commitments. Councilman Higday asked if the staff was ready to make a recommendation to the Authority, and if the Authority was ready to make a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Hinson stated that the staff would recommend that use tax revenue bonds be issued in the amount of $3.8 million; this would give the Authority the $2 million needed, and provide the capitalized interest for the first seven years. Mr. Voth stated that the Authority is not ready at this point in time to make a recommendation. This is the first time they have received this proposal, and would like to discuss the situation further before making a determination . He did point out that alternative #3, the issuance of use tax revenue bonds leaves the Authority with the option of refinancing at a later date if the need arose. Mr. Hinson thanked members of the City Council and the financial advisors for attending the meeting . IV. INVESTMENT POLICY. Mr. Hinson introduced Mr. Langhoff of Managed Financial Services. Mr. Hinson stated that the auditors had recommended adoption of a formal investment poli- cy, and that Mr. Langhoff had drafted the Investment Policy which was con- tained in the EURA packet. Mr. Langhoff reviewed the proposed Investment Policy, noting that the Policy designates who is responsible for cash management, legal limits on invest- ments, investment objectives, authorized investments, reporting and auditing. Discussion ensued . Ms. Keena questioned the two year investment term under Investment Objectives, and asked if this time frame is normal. Mr. Langhoff stated that he is of the opinion that a two year investment time period would be an outer limit for a public entity. Mr. Langhoff pointed out that all in- vestments over $100,000 are collateralized. Mr. Hinson stated that the auditors were concerned that even though the Au- thority gets monthly reports from MFS, there was a limited frame work within which he and Mr. Langhoff function to make the investments for the Authority. The auditors felt that a general investment policy was needed, and stated that he would ask the Authority to consider the Investment Policy for approval as written, or to make whatever modifications they felt were needed. Keena moved: Tatton seconded: The Englewood Urban Renewal Authority adopt the Investment Policy prepared by Managed Financial Services . -5 - AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Voth, None None None Cole, Keena, Mcintyre, Minnick, Totton, VanDyke The motion carried. V. FINANCIAL REPORTS. Expenditures Investments The Expenditure and Investment reports were reviewed. Mr. Voth asked about the funds invested with the City that are "liquid". Mr. Hinson stated that these funds are used to make the payments to contractors, to pay outstanding interest on the Bank loan, etc. VI. LITTLE DRY CREEK. Mr. Hinson stated that the Authority has received a request from RBI to sub- stitute securities for retainage held by the Authority for their work on Lit- tle Dry Creek. The retainage is held to assure that contract work is complet- ed, to pay for liquidated damages, and make sure that subcontractors have been paid at the end of the contract. The Authority has verified that RBI does have the right to substitute securities for retainage. However, the securi- ties must meet with the approval of the Authority. Mr. Hinson stated that for the last three weeks, staff has been working with RBI representatives to develop an escrow agreement to deal with the retainage exchange. Mr. Randall of RBI has purchased a Certificate of Deposit in the amount of $250,000. In light of the law which states that one person, one account is insured only up to $100,000, the $250,000 C.D. is not acceptable. After further contact with Mr. Randall, he has indicated that he would be willing to settle for release of only a portion of the retainage and would drop the idea of substituting securities for the total retainage. Ms. Ragland discussed her memorandum to the Authority of December 2. Ms. Rag- land stated that quite a bit of work has been done on Little Dry Creek in the last couple of months. However, the majority of work that remains to be done is grading and landscaping work. The ground is now frozen and the question is whether the sod, if it is laid now, would survive the winter. Ms. Ragland noted that her experience with the company has been that it is more difficult to effect corrections on something that has to be redone or replaced, and she is concerned that the landscaping will have to be replaced in the Spring. Also, there have been some days of bad weather the last couple of weeks, which have further slowed progress, and more storms will be coming. Ms. Ragland suggested shutting the job down by mid-December, and requiring completion of the job no earlier than March 1, 1988, and no later than May 1, 1988. Ms. Ragland discussed what would be entailed in shutting the job down: this would include: 1) 2) 3) Finishing placement of riprap and the concrete ramp up to Sherman; Backfilling irrigation trenches; Removing the trailer, materials, etc., from East Jefferson Drive, cleaning up the street, and repairing potholes . Ms. Ragland stated that Mr. Schaal of EDAW will be in town on December 3, and she will discuss the matter with him . Ms . Ragland stated that she would like some direction from the members of the Authority on how to proceed if Mr. Schaal's opinion is that the landscaping work should not be completed now, but -6 - • • • • • held off until Spring. Ms. Ragland stated that it is her op1n1on that the job superintendent is in favor of closing the job down until Spring, but is not sure of the reaction of the company owner. Ms. Ragland stated that she is of the opinion that the Authority should consider what is best for the project, and then the staff will discuss it with the owner. Mr. Benedetti asked what would be entailed in remobilization costs for the company in the Spring. Ms. Ragland stated that she felt remobilization costs would be minimal. Mrs. Cole stated that the company has been so far behind schedule on the project from the beginning, that any remobilization costs should not have to be borne by the Authority. Ms. Ragland stated that before the job is closed down, she would want to make sure the flood insurance purchased by the contractor is still in effect and would be in effect until the job is completed. She would request an up-dated certificate of insurance. Mr. Voth questioned that insurance coverage would apply for a job that has been shut down. Discussion ensued. Ms. Keena asked if the delay in completion of the RBI por- tion of the contract would have any effect on the Trammell Crow project. Mr. Hinson stated it would not. The portion of Little Dry Creek being done by Lillard & Clark would have greater effect on the Trammell Crow development. Mr. Totton suggested the possibility of a spring flood that might cause damage to the Trammell Crow site if it comes before the sod has rooted. Ms. Keena questioned the reduction of retainage to 5%; she stated she thought the retainage was 10% of the contract price. Ms. Ragland stated that the retainage the Authority has now is 10% of the total project. Ms. Ragland es- timates the work remaining is in the neighborhood of $80,000. This amount would be retained, as well as the 5% of the total contract amount, which would give a retainage of approximately $220,000. Ms. Ragland stated that while the quality of the work on the overall job may not be as high as the staff would have liked, it would be difficult to say it is not acceptable. Mr. Benedetti asked if formal acceptance had been given on any of the job. Ms. Ragland stated that acceptance has not been given on any part of the job. Discussion ensued. Ms. Keena suggested that if the amount of work remaining to be completed is estimated to be in the neighborhood of $80,000, she felt it would be difficult to refuse to release at least part of the retainage. Fur- ther discussion ensued. Mr. Mccown asked what the options are for the Authority at this point in time. Mr. Benedetti stated that the Authority could put the contractor in default, or let them go ahead with the work. Mr. Voth asked what reaction Ms. Ragland had gotten from the job superinten- dent in discussion of the project. Ms. Ragland stated that it is her opinion the superintendent would like to work on the job until the next snow storm, and then to shut down until next Spring. Mr. Mccown pointed out that it ap- pears the majority of the work remaining is grading and landscaping and that RBI is very good in doing landscaping. Mr. Mccown stated that RBI had done the golf course, and did a very good job on that project. • Further discussion followed. -7 - VanDyke moved: Keena seconded: The Urban Renewal Authority support the recommendation of the Director of Engineering Services to stop work by RBI on the Little Dry Creek Project by mid-December; said work is to be completed no earlier than March 1, 1988, nor later than May 1, 1988. The Director of Engineering Services is to review the flood insurance policy carried by RBI to as- sure that this will be in effect even though the project is closed down during the winter months. Retainage shall be reduced to 5% of the total contract amount, but in no event less than $140,000, and RB I shall agree to complete the contract in the Spring of 1988 . The time elements set forth in Ms. Ragland's memorandum were discussed. Ms. Ragland clarified that she did not want work to begin prior to March 1, 1988 because of the weather and frozen ground that is common at this time of year. Further, the job is to be completed no later than May 1. She estimates that 20 days is sufficient time to complete the job once the contractor is on the site. This is the reason for the range of time given from March 1 to May 1. Ms. Ragland asked the opinion of the Authority on charging liquidated damages if the contractor does not complete the work within the specified 20 day peri- od. Discussion followed. The contract states that $500 per day in liquidated damages shall be charged. It was the feeling of the Authority that if the contractor asks for an extension beyond May 1, very heavy penalties should be charged. Mr. Benedetti pointed out that the contract does require $500 per day, and that this is a pretty stiff fine. • Ms. VanDyke asked if either Mr. Koltay or Ms. Habenicht had any comments to • make on this. Mr . Koltay stated that as a contractor, he would look for any means to realize cash. He expressed his opinion that if the job is closed down, the contractor won't return to finish the job in the Spring, but if he does not, the Authority may have a claim on the bonding company. He noted that liquidated damages are fought in Court. However, he agreed with the Au- thority's position. The vote on the motion was called. AYES: Cole, None None None Keena, Mcintyre, Minnick, Totton, VanDyke, Voth NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: The motion carried. VII. LAND ACQUISITION. Mr. Hinson reported a settlement with Ms . Holthaus in the amount of $6,500 for the Little Dry Creek righ t -of-way. VIII. TROLLEY SQUARE. Mr. Hinson reported on the City Council meeting with Mr. Ames of JWM regarding the Ground Lease between the City of Englewood and Mr. Brady . -8 - • • • • Mr. Hinson stated that Mr. Ames has said that he has renderings of the pro- posed improvements to the rear of the buildings on Broadway, which he will show the staff on Thursday, December 3. There has been no formal response on the Assignment Agreement, but Coast-to- Coast Hardware is scheduled to come in for a Building Permit this week. IX. LINCOR PROPERTIES OF COLORADO, INC. Mr. Hinson reported that Ms. Shube of Linear has indicated a definite interest on the part of one of her contacts in the old King Sooper's site. Mr. Hinson estimated that he would have further information for the Authority at the next meeting in January. X. LITTLE DRY CREEK Urban Drainage Mr. Hinson stated that the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District has indi- cated an interest in contributing an additional $200,000 to the City for the Little Dry Creek flood control project. XI. BOND REFUNDING/FINANCING. Mr. Hinson stated that the staff has prepared a resolution for the consider- ation of the Authority asking the City Council to issue Use Tax Revenue Bonds. Discussion ensued . Totton moved: Cole seconded: The Urban Renewal Authority approve and adopt Resolution #20, Series of 1987, A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING LEGAL COUNSEL TO PREPARE, AND ITS CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE, A DEBT INSTRUMENT WHEREBY THE AU- THORITY OBLIGATES ITSELF TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON USE TAX REVENUE BONDS ISSUED BY THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE AUTHORITY. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Keena, Mcintyre, Minnick, Totton, VanDyke, Voth, Cole None None None The motion carried. Ms . Keena asked if, from a strictly financial point of view, the imposition of a food tax is the best way to proceed. Mr. Bell answered yes. She stated that she did not previously realize the 1/2% sales tax increase was subject to a six month review. Ms. VanDyke asked if the City chose to issue the Use Tax Revenue Bonds, does this mean that E. F. Hutton personnel would be involved. Mr. Hinson stated that this is a request from the EURA to the City to issue the bonds. It is up to the City Council to choose the firm to work with on the bond issue. Ms . VanDyke pointed out that Mr. Bell and Ms. McBride have spent a lot of time on this matter up to this po i nt in time . Ms . Keena stated that substantial fees have been lost for the firm because Mr. Bell and Ms. McBride have recommended -9 - the smaller bond issue rather than the refunding of the $30,000,000 outstand- ing bond issue. Brief discussion ensued. XI I. EDDA. Ms. Dietrich stated that the agenda for the next EDDA meeting will contain an item pertaining to the possible funding by EDDA of the small fountain in the Little Dry Creek improvement area. If this request for funding of the foun- tain is approved by the Board, they will be looking for money to contribute to the construction of this fountain. XIII. CHRISTMAS PARTY. Mr. Hinson stated that following the last meeting, the staff had conducted a written ballot on whether the Authority should have a formal Christmas Party. It was the consensus of the Authority members that in light of the economy of the City and the Authority, that this was not an advisable activity this year. Mr. Voth asked if any members had any alternative suggestions to the formal Christmas Party. No suggestions were submitted. The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:30 P.M. ~~Ad1fa-Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary -10 - • • •