Laserfiche WebLink
¸28 <br /> <br />required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section <br />15.1-1378.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended <br />("Virginia COde"). . <br /> <br /> 2. The approval~of.the issuance of the Refunding Bond <br />does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser <br />of the Refunding bond of the creditworthiness of the Project <br />or the Foundation. <br /> <br /> 3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary <br />Income Tax Regulations Section 5f.103-29(f)(1), this <br />resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year <br />from the date of its adoption. <br /> <br /> 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon <br />its adoption, <br /> <br /> It was agreed that the City Manager would communicate <br />with the CIDA with regard to criteria compliance. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated that Council may want to say that it <br />will not approve any future bond projects without written <br />documentation that the criteria have been met. <br /> <br />ORDINANCE: AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF $7 MILLION GENERAL OBLIGATION <br />PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS (2nd reading) <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters noted that by approving the bond issuance <br />Council is committing to start the Johnson School renovations <br />next year. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter expressed concern that the ordinance <br />commits the expenditure of funds for schools when only <br />sketchy details are available. <br /> <br /> Ms. Rita~Scott, Director of Finance, stated that tax <br />laws require the listing of projects and if less is needed <br />for school renovations, the funds can be allocated to another <br />governmental project as long as it is expended within the two <br />year time period. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that the ordinance does not commit <br />the Council to spending the total amount listed for schools <br />renovations. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano made a motion to amend the ordinance by <br />reducing the bond issuance to $5.5 million. Mr. Toscano <br />stated that he thought the City was taking on too much debt <br />and reducing the amount to $5.5 million would reduce the debt <br />service payment by between $100,000 and $150,000 per year. <br />Mr. Toscano stated that he continued to support bonds for <br />school renovations and the mall extension but remained <br />concerned about the cost of the parking garage, since the <br />garage is now estimated to cost over $8 million, the City has <br />continually been asked to pay more, and the commercial space <br />is not yet sold. Mr. Toscano stated that he realized that <br />there would be design problems but~idid not think the City <br />could afford the luxury of owning unsold commercial space. <br /> <br />Mr. Toscano's motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters noted that the garage had already been <br />through one redesign and to do so again would not only delay <br />the project further, but ~would ~be costly. <br /> <br /> Ms. SlaUghter stated that she also has concerns about <br />moving ahead with the parking garage and was especially <br />concerned that it might be overbuilt in tough economic times. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that the cost to redesign would have <br />to be financed entirely by the City and noted that bids are <br />expected to go out for the project in approximately ten days, <br />after formal approval of the project by Council. <br /> <br /> <br />