The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.spec.12021985 � '�Ai �' . 4 ..� a,:.?at1�Y�.a~��i`Y..'`i�+� ��a'�"'�S�a�� PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OP COMMIS320l16RS , ,�RCtA . IffiRTit • �,DF.0-NRRR. 19q5 PRl:3ENTs TFIOHAS BLAKE. HELEN KLNJDERUD, CDDRGE tU1DSEN, ROBERT BRAUDIS Public The Oonrd convened a public hearing to consider on second Neacing: and final reading the Eollowtng documents: Nuaectr t,onghouce Retinance a. An O�dlnance authocizing !be exccution and delLvory by tbe Couney as leaooc of n thicey (30) year site leaee (including a� option uQon deEault, th�ough lessee to pucchase the land from the County at fatr mackct valuo? in connection vith the isauancc and sa�e of S1.25�,000 . Induatcial Developmont Revenue Bonds (ASpen-Pitkin Emgloyec lioueing, Ioc. Project) Series 1985r ratLFying certaln acttona hecetofora takent and repealing action hereroEore taken in conElict herewlth b. A Resolution authorixing tbe issuance dod sa�e b6a o F 51.250,OD0 Induatcial Development Rcva�ue 6onds (Aspen- - Attkin �mployee llousin4. Inc. P�oject) Saries 19B5t ratifying cectain actio�s hcretofoca takcnr authorizing thc excscution oE and delivary by ttte County of a Loan Agreement, Indenture of Trust, Escrov Agce@ment, and OfE�r to Purchase; app�oving tha form af lfo�tgage, - Security A9reement and Fixtuce Financing Statemant; Authocizi�g the execution and delivery of such bonds a�d closing docume�ts; artd repealing action heretofore taken in co�flict herewith c. A Resolution of the Board of County Commissionecs of Pitki� County, Colorado, approvin9 and adopting certaio docume�ts in cannection with the refinaacing of the Hunter Longhouse F�mployee Housing Pcoject, to wit; the dedication oE real pcoperty to employee housing cestric- _ tions and guidelines (Hunter Longhouse), the Equity Investment Agreement, the Equity Investment Repayment Agceement an6 the Manageme�t Agreement {Huntet Longhouse) rrf p �'�:d i f 'S - ,,,.�_i Assistant County Attorney Gary Esary introduced the above as well - � as all of the documents that would be authorized as a cesult of � �"'� approval. He reviewed various changes that were effected subsequent x='-�� to first reading, an3 specifically to the Loan Agreement, Indenture ��'�:�-=�: of Trust, Site Lease, OEfer to Purchase, Repayment Agreement and ss`,� `.� the Manaqement Agreement, all of which were requested by the �;�-�x underwriter and or the lender, Esacy �ecommended second reading .;�;.,,�r,�;. approval of both resolutions and the ordinance as submitted; it �°,•;��,� . �.R;; Commissioner s Meeting 2 December, 1985 - 1 :;�� -��-.-.;, �; > , ,,t�x: � �� _.... `_.�, .�_...�.. , �:�:. - r�`'��;,= �,� ` ` . . :i� �- 1` :�' =�� "�, r `'�"` . ,' � , .,� � '; {�- � . �•: ,. . r . . '' � i.'"��' '� �• r4� .� ��r.k��'� was anticipated that the closing of the bonds r►ould occut prior to the end of the yeac. Klanderud c,uestioned the term of the lease Eor �he subject property. £saty explained that the property was subject to a fffty {50) ye�t lease at this time, Hhereas the refinancing package pceposed vould reduce the term to a peciod of thirty (�0) years; hor►ever, the lease term would chanqe dramatically to e period of ninety-nino (99) y�ars in the event oE default, fihp default term �tas Cequested by bond coun��l au it vas not felt tfiat the bonds could be sold in the absence of surN a tern. Hadsen hxnres3ed �ome rnrfcern with the rehuirpment that the Itou�in9 Authoriry provide for thirreen (13? additinnal unitet tt was not knova, foc ins�ance, whether the PCO�pC� Would genecate sufEicient cevenue to provide foc the additlonal unitg. Esacy explained that the hulhntity w�s re�uired, upon the ignuance oE a CertiEicare nf Ocrupancy Eor phase 't�+o (21 of chQ Lodge or 1992, whichever Eirsc orcurred, to Qsta�bligh houeinq Eor �hi[ie�n f131 . employees. The Cost Eor �uch hou�inq aas escf,nated to be thcce hundred anr� fifty thousand dollocs lS350,000)t ehe rro�orr would qenecate a cececve ec�ual to twenty peccenC (2A11 of thia amount, oc alxty-three thousanci dollara (S6I,A00>, to earve aa o down p�yment on the now untta, whcre�a the Houalog Autho�lCy would Einance th¢ balanre. Essary noted that eho Proiace would generote additlonal reaerveu which nay be avallabie Eor the thireoen (13) new Qmployaets. Theae additiansl reaecvea wnce aot nQCCasary, howevoc, for ehe new unit� eo be conatrue�Qd= the ssixth-three lhAUSand doilar fSb3,Q001 reae�vc, which would bo eatabllrthod by 1989, vaa �ufficie�t, in snd oE ituolE, to �rovide Eor auch. Ilouatny Authority noacd mc�uer tlarcy Truoco�t vzplatned that ehe reoecve Eund to bc established Eoc the ProjQee aould total one huaciced and ninety-thcee thausaoc► dol3ars (5193,OOQ3 t the resocvo established Eor the Prpject upon i!s opening in 1980 only apProximated one hunc3ced And Eorty tbausand dollars iS1AQ,QQO), In addition, the rants to be assesaed Far the Hunter Longhouse unies vare sob�tantiAlly highcc npw tban when tho Pcojoct ttrsC opened. Qoth oE the�e iacto�s eontrihuteci towa�d� c�reatet financial - secuctty foc tbe Pcoject and uould allsviale tb@ occuc�ence oE a _ . fuCure defoult. Tcoscott noted that tbe only fotmal obli9Ation of the Project was a one hundced and tbirty-six tbouttand dollar (5136,0oQ) annual bond payr�en� to Central Aartk af Penvec. Plake then opened the hea[ing for public comment. Esacy noted that. du�ing fi�st reading, there wa� some coocecn with the repayment schedule for tlie Aspen Mountain Lod9e contcibution and the potential foc a balloon payment of the entire pcineipal amount. He explained that he attempted to negotiate this issue vith the affected parties, and that he was unable to amend the repayment schedule proposed. It was implicit ia the ceEinanci�q • program, however, that future negotiations could occu[. Hunter Longhouse Company representative t4ike Vernon explained that the revenue and debt service projections accomplished foc the refinancing pcogram wece generally conservative, The formal ,. p commitments to Central Bank of Denver and the Aspen Fiountain `'? Lodge wece the only two (21 const�aints on the use of revenues generated by the Project; the amount of the rental rates, the - size af the reserve, amongst others, could all be amended in � future. - - Klanderud noted that the two (21 most significant d�awbacks ' , ,-. associated with the program were the potential for losing the '`-- subject pcopesty in the event of default, and the potential for a _#::`._';'- . - balloon payment for the repayment of the Aspen Ntountain Lodge :;;^-;,.:��?r-.,:-. contribution. These two (2) factors were considered of sufficient ^��-::-° significance as to warrant denial of the Qcogram. �ir:-'=:--,�;+-� �,"�s�� Esacy explained that the two (2) issues noted above were the ��y,�:1:,:.: _ T�"3 x�x Commissioner's pieeting 2 December, 1985 - 2 -�-�.t�';s .'T.`�ie�,tx,s.: � - "�t: <:;,r " �..^y�1,i'. a a�".ISCS`�l�.n�..��-��I. Y��41�t ..r4� � � I L�I��1��' . r � only two (2) exposutes the County would be assuming tbat were not in existence prioc to thp default. The rpfinancing progcam would - result in s�bstantia2 benpfits, however, partfcularly as it would , preCiude foreclosure and as the Pcoject would likely genecate sufficient additional revenues for use in othec employee housing ptojects. , 131ake asked foc edditional commeaCS; Chere being none, the hearing was clos¢d. fi0dsen ;pnved to apprave both cesnlutions and the ordinance, as recittd by� title above, an secdnd and final readin�. 6raudis aecandgd aed che mntinn passed wi�h opposiYion from Rlander�xi as noted. • There being no futther fwsinesg. the mee�ing aug adjaucned. ?,;; , ., RospltCtlully Submttt@d. APPROVED: � � -��,�iL-11,tt r R 1�- _ . B�ty Counly Clerk Tom Dlake. Chairman Board oE County Coromiaeioenra � •� > <• � ,;..]• �'�r{ ' -� ! -,i , { � � ;.',.� � `.:f _ ,,. � _`. .� K.� _� ..�`4s ":i 3�:1 ��w <;i .. R��.��- . . :� � s Commissioner's Meetin9 2 December. 1985 - 3 ;:z. -� .-r:-� .�;::..�::�.. ,