Laserfiche WebLink
37 2 <br /> STUDY SESSION (continued) <br /> Al <br /> flow deficits would come up in about 1985, and the common sense that would be involved <br /> in terms of utilization of bonds should be built into the legislative history of the <br /> District. The Facilities Charge could be changed to try to soften the effect in 1985 .. <br /> of the amount of bonds that would be required. He advised that the Council would not <br /> be forced to issue the bonds, and suggested building a history of the reasoning for <br /> the charge and the installation of the improvements from now through 1985 to provide <br /> a sound basis for a future Council to be convinced that the program is workable, and <br /> should be continued. He pointed out that a Council technically cannot bind future <br /> Council policy decisions. <br /> Mr. Fales advised in response to further question that the alternatives to a bond <br /> issue is a facilities charge and that most cities now have some kind of connection <br /> charge, and those are utilized for major public improvements in a manner similar to <br /> this. The developer would be responsible for anything other than the major public <br /> improvements. Another alternative is to use all bond money to do the work with no <br /> facilities charge, and a third one is to attempt to make a developer responsible <br /> for all future public improvements, which he believes is economically unfeasible. <br /> Responding to additional questions by Council, Mr. Fales said that if the charge <br /> goes into effect in 1980, as assumed in the report, future developments adjacent <br /> to the developable land (Areas A, B and D, primarily) would be charged, and that <br /> is where the fund would come from. In addition, any funds that the District <br /> collects from Parkwood 101, either as back charges for taxes or as buy-in costs <br /> without annexation, would become District funds and provide part of the initial <br /> fund. It would not be applied retroactively, but only when an ordinance went into <br /> effect. Any building permit application after that date would be subject to it and <br /> any before that date would not. <br /> Council expressed concern regarding reference in the report to the time when a <br /> shortfall might develop and a bond issue might need to be utilized, and suggested <br /> that an additional chart should be included based on equivalent dwelling units on <br /> the schedules per year to find out exactly what the debt service on the $30 million <br /> bond issue would mean to the people living there now, during the period the money <br /> is necessary. MIR <br /> Mr. Fales responded that this could be done, but you would have to assume the amount <br /> of assessed valuation that debt service would be based upon at that point, and also trod <br /> that a future Council would not decide in any given year that the rate of land ab- <br /> sorption for the following year is not going to require the installation of major <br /> public facilities, and that a set-aside of some kind ought to be made for the purpose <br /> of debt reduction. He suggested that this might not be wise for a future Council <br /> to do, because if the funds are used to reduce debt service, they will not be there <br /> to build future facilities to further more development. That would be a decision <br /> to be made by that future Council, and if there was substantial pressure to use <br /> some of the accumulated money to reduce that year's debt service, the Council would <br /> have to face that decision, but they would at least have the advantage of knowing <br /> more than is known at this point of what, in 1987, is going to be needed to be <br /> built and how much is in the fund from previous development, and would be more able <br /> to coordinate costs. <br /> Council indicated that the additional chart was necessary to make their decision <br /> from the standpoint of effects of what the taxes will be and their impact on <br /> marketability of property in the District in the future, and therefore the ultimate <br /> ability to repay the bonds. <br /> Mr. Fales noted that there are probably many other factors involved that might <br /> either impede or speed up development, particularly South Shores, which is why <br /> the report is divided into two parts. It can reasonably be assumed that the rest <br /> of the Peninsula will be allowed to develop out, but South Shores has yet to go <br /> through other regional, state and federal agencies. <br /> Adj.Reg.Mtg. <br /> 10/11/80 <br /> Page 4 <br /> • <br />