Loading...
R2010-069 - 2010-06-28RESOLUTION NO. R2010-69 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PEARLAND, TEXAS, APPROVING A BOND ORDER OF BRAZORIA COUNTY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 6 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $1,195,000 UNLIMITED TAX BONDS, SERIES 2010A. WHEREAS, the Brazoria County Municipal Utility District No. 6(the "District") is located within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Pearland, Texas (the "City"); and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. R 86-7, dated February 10, 1986, the City consented to the creation of the District, and placed certain conditions on the issuance of bonds by the District, including the approval by the City Council of the District's issuance of such bonds; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the District's proposed $1,195,000 Unlimited Tax Bonds, Series 2010A, and has found it to be acceptable; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PEARLAND, TEXAS: Section 1. All of the matters and facts set forth in the preamble hereof are true and correct. Section 2. The bond order of the board of directors of Brazoria County Municipal Utility District No. 6, authorizing the issuance of its $1,195,000 Unlimited Tax Bonds, Series 2010A, is hereby approved. Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Pearland and it is accordingly so resolved. RESOLUTION NO. R2010-69 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this the 28 day of June, A. D., 2010. �l/YyU TOM REID MAYOR ATTEST: � . � /.�:./l/ //.�/.��. • • �� `'�. % / i'\ • APPROVED AS TO FORM: ��_ DARRIN M. COKER CITY ATTORNEY 2 BRAZORIA COUNTY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO.6 • . Si Projection of Income and Expenses ' . NO GROWTH Proposed$1,195,000 Unlimited Tax Bonds,Series 2010A Year Projected Projected Tax Interest Total Current Proposed Total Cumulative %of Ending Tax Assessed Tax Collections Earned Revenue Debt Service Series 2010A Debt Service Ending Next Years 12/30 Year Valuation (a) • Rate 95% 1.00% Available ' Requirements Debt Service Requirements Fund Balance Debt Service • 2009 • $ 4,825,938 (b) 164.90% 2010 2009 $ 515,482,335 .$ •0,6000• $ 2,938,249 $ 48,259 $ 7,812,446 $ 2,911,725 $ 14,938 (c) $ 2,926,662 4,885,784 160.82% 2011 2010 515,482,335 0.6600'. 2,938,249 48,858 7,872,892 2,923,325 114,750 3,038,075 4,834,817 158.33% 2012 2011 515,482,335 _ U.6000. 2,938,249 - 7,773,066 2,936,620 117,000 3,053,620 4,719,446 154.71% 2013 2012 515,482,335 0.6000. 2,938,249 - 7,657,695 . 2,936,560 114,000 3,050,560 4,607,135 149.97% 2014 2013 515,482,335 • 0.6000. 2,938,249 - 7,545,384 2,956,109 116,000 3,072,109 4,473,276 146.45% 2015 2014 515,482,335 0.6000 2,938,249 - 7,411,525 2,941,689 112,750 3,054,439 4,357,086 142.15% 2016 2015 515,482,335 • 0.6000. 2,938,249 • - 7,295,336 2,950,686 114,500 3,065,186 4,230,149 137.88% 2017 2016 515,482,335 . 0.6000 2,938,249 - 7,168,399 2,952,049 116,000 . 3,068,049 4,100,350 133.52% 2018 2017 515,482,335 • ; 0:6000 2,938,249 - 7,038,599 2,953,799 117,250 3,071,049 3,967,550 129.46% 2019 2018 515,482,335 0.6000 2,938,249 - 6,905,800 2,951,486 113,250 3,064,736 3,841,063 137.03% _ 2020 2019 515,482,335 0.6000. 2,938,249 - 6,779,313 2,688,746 114,250 2,802,996 3,976,317 150.92% 2021 2020 515,482,335 0.6000' 2,938,249 - 6,914,566 2,519,691 115,000 2,634,691 • 4,279,875 177.15% 2022 2021 515,482,335 0.6000 2,938,249 - 7,218,124 2,300,526 115,500 2,416,026 • 4,802,098 282.07% 2023 2022 515,482,335 0.6000 2,938,249 - 7,740,347 1,586,709 115,750 1,702,459 6,037,888 353.55% 2024 2023 515,482,335 0.6000. 2,938,249 - . 8,976,138 1,592,061 115,750 1,707,811 7,268,326 6292.92% 2025 2024 515,482,335 0.6000. 2,938,249 - 10,206,576 - 115,500 115,500 10,091,076 • • $ 40,101,781 $ 1,742,188 $ 41,843,968 • (a) No growth projected from the 2009 Certified Assessed Value. (b)Estimated debt service fund balance at September 2,2009. • (c),`Interest rate on the Bonds estimated at 5.00%. May 11,2010 3:44 pm Prepared by RBC Capital Markets Corporation (Finance 6.015 BrazoriaMUD6:BMUD6-2010A) Page 1 • BOND DEBT SERVICE Brazoria County Municipal Utility District#6 U/L Tax Bonds,Series 2010A Period Annual Ending Principal Interest Debt Service Debt Service 09/01/2010 14,937.50 14,937.50 14,937.50 03/01/2011 29,875.00 29,875.00 09/01/2011 , 55,000 29,875.00 84,875.00 114,750.00 03/01/2012 28,500.00 28,500.00 09/01/2012 60,000 28,500.00 88,500.00 117,000.00 03/01/2013 27,000.00 27,000.00 09/01/2013 60,000 27,000.00 87,000.00 114,000.00 03/01/2014 25,500.00 25,500.00 09/01/2014 65,000 25,500.00 90,500.00 116,000.00 03/01/2015 23,875.00 23,875.00 09/01/2015 65,000 23,875.00 88,875.00 112,750.00 03/01/2016 22,250.00 22,250.00. 09/01/2016 70,000 22,250.00 92,250.00 114,500.00 03/01/2017 20,500.00 20,500.00 09/01/2017 75,000 20,500.00 95,500.00 116,000.00 03/01/2018 18,625.00 18,625.00 • 09/01/2018 80,000 18,625.00 98,625.00 117,250.00 03/01/2019 16,625.00 16,625.00 09/01/2019 80,000 16,625.00 96,625.00 113,250.00 03/01/2020 14,625.00 14,625.00 09/01/2020 85,000 14,625.00 99,625.00 114,250.00 03/01/2021 12,500.00 12,500.00 09/01/2021 90,000 12,500.00 102,500.00 115,000.00 03/01/2022 10,250.00 10,250.00 09/01/2022 95,000 10,250.00 105,250.00 115,500.00 03/01/2023 7,875.00 7,875.00 09/01/2023 100,000 7,875.00 107,875.00 115,750.00 03/01/2024 5,375.00 5,375.00 09/01/2024 105,000 5,375.00 110,375.00 115,750.00 03/01/2025 2,750.00 2,750.00 09/01/2025 110,000 2,750.00 112,750.00 • 115,500.00 1,195,000 547,187.50 1,742,187.50 1,742,187.50 • Darrin Coker/COP To Peter Harding<pharding@sphllp.com> _f-` • • 05/17/2010 01:11 PM cc Bill Eisen/COP@ci.pearland.tx.us bcc steve@saboe.com;felicia.kyle@sutherland.com Subject RE:MUD 6 BondsI Peter-As indicated in my previous email,the City recognizes the MUD's concern and we understand the distinct differences between MUD 6 and Mud's 2&3.That being said,we would like the SPA Committee to discuss this issue in more detail before we commit to extending the debt at this time. I also want to reiterate the City's appreciation of the MUD's willingness to accommodate the City while we try to get a better grasp of the debt issue. As for the Committee, don't you think that we(you, me, Brian and Bill)should meet at the staff level in an effort to iron out as many details as possible before the Committe meets again? I got the impression that the Committe wanted our respective staffs to resolve as many issues as possible prior to the next Committee meeting.Any thoughts? Darrin M. Coker • City Attorney-City of Pearland 3519 Liberty Drive Pearland,TX 77581 Telephone: 281-652-1664 • Fax: 281-652-1679 CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT This message and all attachments are confidential and may be protected by the attorney-client and other privileges.Any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, disclosure or distribution by persons other than the intended recipients is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission, or by calling the City of Pearland at(281) 652-1664. Unless expressly stated in this a-mail, nothing in this message should be construed as a digital or electronic signature.Thank you for you cooperation. Peter Harding<pharding@sphllp.com> • Peter Harding <pharding@sphilp.com> To "DCoker@ci.pearland.tx.us"<DCoker@ci.pearland.tx.us>, ;f .05/12/2010 11:36 AM "eugene.shepherd@rbccm.com" <eugene.shepherd@rbccm.com> cc "Bill_Eisen/COP@ci.pearland.tx.us" <Bill Eisen/COP@ci.pearland.tx.us>, Bryan Jordan <BJordan@jonescarter.com> Subject RE:MUD 6 Bonds Darrin - The MUD 6 Board met yesterday and discussed the maturity schedule • issue. The District is somewhat perplexed that the maturity schedule has to be tied up with the SPA negotiations, which have only recently begun and who knows how long they will take. In the meantime, the District has debt to issue and needs to know whether the City will agree or not to a maturity schedule that the District considers reasonable. The maturity schedule proposed by Mr. Shepherd is a standard extension of the schedule used by all mud's and even presumably all cities, and it allows the District to plan for the future issuance of forecast debt with minimal impact on the District's tax rate. We think the City needs to understand that MUD 6 is not the same as MUD's 2 and 3, which we understand to have issued all their debt relative to prospective growth in their districts. MUD 6 has not, as there is still undeveloped land in the District and developed land as to which the District has not yet issued bonds to finance the water, sewer and drainage - infrastructure. Requiring the District to use its existing maturity schedule will just force the District to raise its tax rate. I'm not sure whether the City even has the authority to force the District to do so, no matter what the City consent says. That said, Mr. Shepherd has informed the Board that it can issue the proposed $1, 195,000 bond issue already approved by the TCEQ with a maturity schedule ending in 2025 without impacting the District'ss current tax rate and that the City has indicated that it will approve this bond issue.. Mr. Shepherd will be in contact with the City regarding same. That should resolve the issue for the moment. As the District plans to file another bond application with the TCEQ in the near future (to fund.utilities already put in the ground by a developer.and as to which the developer has created sufficient taxable value for the District to finance those utilities) ; the District needs to know what the City will or will not approve, in order that it may structure the maturity schedule for the bond application and for future bonds, both with roads and recreational facilities and without them. There are other utilities that developers have previously constructed but as to which there is not yet sufficient taxable value for the District to issue debt to finance same, as you know from the schedules generated by Mr. Shepherd and the District's engineers and forwarded to the City. Therefore, let us know how the City wants to proceed in addressing this issue. We're happy to resolve it in connection with a SPA but that means the SPA needs to be concluded quickly and not drawn out over months and months. Peter Original Message From: DCoker@ci.pearland.tx.us [mailto:DCoker@ci.pearland.tx.us] Sent: Tuesday, . May 11, 2010 8:39 AM To: eugene.shepherd@rbccm.com Cc: Bill_Eisen/COP@ci.pearland.tx.us; Peter Harding Subject: MUD 6 Bonds Gene- The City Council met last night to discuss the SPA with Mud 6 and in doing so discussed the proposed bond issuance. While the Council has no objection to the amount of the proposed bond sale, there are concerns with the proposed maturity schedule that would extend the maturity out to 2030. After our meeting last week, you indicated that this issuance could stay within the existing maturity schedule without requiring a tax increase. Last night the Council indicated their preference that the structure of the proposed debt stay within the parameters of the existing debt. Please rest assured that the City Council in no way wants to be an obstacle for the MUD and I assure you that the City is .willing to work with you and the MUD Board to accomplish our mutual goals. As you know we are in SPA negotiations with the MUD and our primary concern is that agreeing to extend the debt at this stage in essence negotiates one of the key elements of the SPA separate and apart from our SPA negotiations. Please let me know if you have any questions and how you would like to proceed at this point. Thanks! Darrin M. Coker City Attorney - City of Pearland - 3519 Liberty Drive Pearland, TX 77581 Telephone: 281-652-1664 Fax: 281-652-1679 CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT This message and all attachments are confidential and may be protected by the attorney-client and other privileges. Any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, disclosure or distribution by persons other than the intended recipients is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission, or by calling the City of Pearland at (281) 652-1664. Unless expressly stated in this e-mail, nothing in this message should be construed as a digital or electronic signature. Thank you for you cooperation. ****************ATTENTION TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS:**************** A "REPLY TO ALL" OF THIS EMAIL COULD LEAD TO VIOLATIONS OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. PLEASE REPLY ONLY TO SENDER. **************** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE **************** • The information in this email may be confidential and/or privileged. This email is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, or the information contained herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone and/or return email, delete this email from your system and destroy any printed copies which you may have made of this email. Thank you. **************** IRS Circular 230 Disclosure **************** To the extent this communication contains any statement regarding federal taxes, such statement was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by any person as a basis for avoiding federal tax penalties that may be imposed on that person.