1j. Resolution Delcaring the Official Intent of the City to Reimburse Certain Expenditures from Proceeds of Bonds issued by the City C ITYOF
CHANHASSEN'
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
' FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager
DATE: November 17, 1993
SUBJ: Resolution Declaring the Official Intent of the City of Chanhassen to Reimburse
Certain Expenditures from the Proceeds of Bonds Issued by the City
t
This item has appeared on the last two City Council agendas. The first time we did not get to
' it. At our last meeting, it was discovered that Exhibit A had not been included in the second
copy. Councilman Senn stated that he had pulled the item solely to verify that Exhibit A was
only dealing with the General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds in the amount of $5,630,000 and
' listed as Series 1993B. I discussed this with our Bond Counsel, Dave Kennedy. He relayed that
"Exhibit A" included "all" of the bonds issued during the sale process, i.e. Series B -E (Series A
was sold in January). As Series E is a refunding, the necessity of including it is probably not
overly important, but leaving it would be the most conservative position. So as to allow me to
leave this item on the consent agenda, and based the comments of Councilman Senn, this office
will change Councilman Senn's vote to a "no vote" as if this item was approved.
1
1
EXHIBIT "A"
1
List of Bond Sales:
I General Obligation Tax Increment bonds in the amount of $5,630,000, Series 1993B.
1 General Obligation Improvement Bonds in the amount of $1,635,000, Series 1993C.
General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds in the amount of $680,000, Series 1993D.
I General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds in the amount of $2,015,000, Series 1993E.
1 .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN 7 Il L
0
o'
t
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 t
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
I.
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Mayor and City Council i
FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager 4 / 42.•
DATE: October 25, 1993 1
SUBJ: Resolution Declaring the Official Intent of the City of Chanhassen to Reimburse
Certain Expenditures from the Proceeds of Bonds Issued by the City
Included in this agenda is a resolution asking the state and federal governments to cease passing 1
unfunded mandates on cities. The attached resolution is but another example of unnecessary
paperwork.
1
Background
For the past ten years, the federal government has been attempting to tighten the reins as to what I
type of projects are permitted to be considered as tax exempt. I agree with many of the changes
which basically stopped cities from selling tax exempt bonds to finance the construction of a K- ,
Mart, Hardees, etc. However, as with most federal laws, they went too far or established rules
which put cities into a Catch -22 position. For example, in the quest for insuring that cities were
not bonding for expenses that truly were not tax exempt, a decision was made that the bond
proceeds could only be used for expenses occurring after the bonds were sold. The rationale was
one that since the bonds could only be sold after being reviewed and approved by a Washington
recognized bond attorney [only a handful of designations are typically made in any one state], t
it was reasonable to assume then that the city would only be spending those proceeds on the
items that were approved by that bond attorney as a part of the sale itself. The problem with the I
solution is that it didn't recognize another law which requires that a city carry out a feasibility
study and hold various hearings in advance of declaring the project as a public improvement
project. If those steps are not completed, you cannot legally bond for the costs associated with
that project even though it is recognized that the costs of feasibility studies and hearings are
typically expensive. To solve the problem, the feds should have returned to the previous method
wherein the approving attorney reviewed the pre - bonding expenses and made a decision as to
whether those were reasonable and therefore allowed as a part of the overall bond sale. That
solution was rejected and instead replaced with a requirement that a city pass a resolution which
states someone in the organization has maintained a list of all of the pre -bond sale expenses and
1
1
`°1
1 Mayor and City Council
October 21, 1993
' Page 2
that prior to those expenses being paid that he or she had kept track of the amounts of money
' that would be later sought to be paid for from the bond proceeds once received. The attached
resolution meets the federal guidelines and insures that our city stays in conformance with federal
law even though it serves no useful purpose.
1 Recommendation
' Passage of the attached resolution as recommended by the city's bond consultant, Holmes and
Graven, is recommended.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
City of Chanhassen 1
Carver and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota
DATE: RESOLUTION NO:
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
1
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY
I
OF CHANHASSEN TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE
PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY
WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has issued Tres Reg. § 1.103 -18 providing that ,
proceeds of tax- exempt bonds used to reimburse prior expenditures will not be deemed spent
unless certain requirements are met; and
1
WHEREAS, the City expects to incur certain expenditures which may be financed
temporarily from sources other than bonds, and reimbursed from the proceeds of a bond; and
1
WHEREAS, the reimbursement rules apply to bonds issued after March 2, 1992;
EF IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City THEREFORE, BE SO y y ty of
Chanhassen (The "City ") as follows,
I
1. The City reasonably intends to make expenditures for the
project described in Exhibit A (the "Project "), and reasonably intends to reimburse itself for such I
expenditures from the proceeds of debt to be issued by the City in the maximum principal
amount described in Exhibit A.
2. The City Manager is authorized to designate appropriate additions to Exhibit A 1
in circumstances where time is of the essence, and any such designation shall be reported to the
Council at the earliest practicable date and shall be filed with the official books and records of
111
the City as provided in Section 3.
3. This resolution shall be maintained as part of the books and records of the City
at the main administrative office of the City, and shall be continuously available during normal
business hours of the City on every business day of the period beginning not more than 30 days
after adoption of this resolution and ending on the last date of issue of any bonds issued to
I
reimburse expenditures described in Exhibit A.
4. This resolution is an expression of the reasonable expectations of the City based
1
on the facts and circumstances known to the City as of the Date hereof. The anticipated
reimbursements set forth at Exhibit A are consistent with the City's budgetary and financial
circumstances. No sources other than proceeds of bonds to be issued by the City are, or are
111
reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long -term basis, or otherwise set aside
pursuant to the City's budget of financial policies to pay such Project expenditures. The City
I
1
has not adopted any allocation, budget, or restriction of moneys or adoption of a requirement or
policy to reimburse a fund, the primary purpose of which is to prevent moneys from being
' available to pay an expenditure the City intends to reimburse with proceeds of a borrowing.
5. This resolution is intended to constitute a declaration of official intent for purposes
of Tes Reg § 1.103 -18 and any successor law, regulation, or ruling.
6. The allocation of proceeds of the bonds to be issued to any Project expenditures
described in Exhibit A will be made not later than one year after the expenditure was paid or one
year after the property was placed in service.
' 7. The Project expenditures described in Exhibit A are capital expenditures as defined
in Tes. Reg. 1.150 -1(h), including costs of issuance of the bonds to be issued in order to
reimburse the Project expenditures.
' 8. Proceeds of the bonds issued to reimburse the Project expenditures described in
P
Exhibit A will be deemed spent only when (1) an allocation entry is made on the books or
' records of the City with respect to the bonds; (2) the entry identifies an actual expenditure to be
reimbursed, or where the Project is described as a fund or account, the fund or account from
' which the expenditure was paid; and (3) the allocation is effective to relieve the bond proceeds
from restrictions on unspent proceeds under applicable documents and state laws.
' 9. No entity or entities possess simultaneously two or more of the following
discretionary and non - ministerial powers with respect to the City: power to (1) remove without
cause a controlling portion of the City Council; (2) select, approve, or disapprove a controlling
' portion of the City Council; (3) determine the City's budget or require the use of the City's funds
or assets for the other entity's purpose; or (4) approve, disapprove, or prevent the issuance of
debt obligations of the City.
10. None of the proceeds of the bonds issued to reimburse the City for the Project
expenditures described in Exhibit A will be used within one year of the allocation (i) to refund
' another governmental obligation or (ii) to create or increase the balance in a sinking fund or
replace funds used for such purpose, or (iii) to create or increase the balance in a reserve or
replacement fund or replace funds used for such purposes; or will be used at any time to
' reimburse any person or entity (other than the City) for expenditures originally paid with the
proceeds of a City obligation (excluding a City inter -fund borrowing); unless (i) such amounts
are deposited in a bona fide debt service fund or are used to pay debt service in the next one -year
' period on any City obligation other than the reimbursement bond, or (ii) the original issue was
not reasonably expected to be used to finance the expenditure.
11. No action or inaction by the City with respect to the allocation of bond proceeds
to reimbursement of Project expenditures will be an artifice or device to avoid, in whole or in
part, arbitrage yield restrictions or arbitrage rebate requirements.
' 12
The procedures described in this resolution shall cease to apply to the extent not
required by Tres. Reg. § 1.103 -18 or any successor law, regulation, or ruling.
-
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 13th day of April, 1992. 1
A'F1'EST: 1
1
Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
YES NO ABSENT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
41 • '
ill
HOLMES & GRAVEN
CHARTERED
di . 470 Pilkbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Telephone (612) 3374300
Facsimile (612) 3374310
4 RECEIVED
F ebruary 19, 1992 FEB 2 01992
III CITY pF CH JHgSS
Jean Meuwissen
Treasurer
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen N 55317
Dear Ms. M
II In Augus 991, I wrote to you describing the Treasury's proposed
regulations— referred to as the "reimbursement rules" providing, in general terms,
that proceeds of tax - exempt governmental bonds used to reimburse the issuer for
II prior expenditures will not be deemed to have been "spent" unless certain
requirements are met. After receiving many critical comments, the Internal Revenue
Service revised the regulations and published them on January 30, 1992. A summary
of the final reimbursement rules is enclosed for your information.
The final rules are effective for bonds issued after March 2, 1992. Some of the
cumbersome features of the proposed regulations have been revised, but the overall
II concept remains the same.
In most general terms the reimbursement rules provide that:
4 (1) a declaration of "official intent" by the City must be made on or before
the date of an expenditure that the City expects to reimburse from bond
proceeds;
4 (ii) the reimbursement from bond proceeds must be made within a) one year
after the expenditure or b) one year after the project financed was
"placed in service," whichever date is later; and
I I (iii) the expenditures to be reimbursed must be "capital expenditures" •
under general federal tax law (bond issuance costs are deemed "capital
expenditures ") .
11 There are two key exceptions to the "official intent" at requirement: (1) the
4 declaration is not required for "preliminary expenditures" (such as engineering,
architectural work, and bond issuance costs) up to 20% of the bond amount; and (2)
"official intent" during the period from September 8, 1989 to March 1, 1992 can be
shown by objective evidence that the issuer intended at the time of the
expenditure to reimburse itself from bond proceeds.
Enclosed is a sample resolution that we think will ut the City
final rules if it is adopted prior to the expenditure to e reimbursed. the
ill resolution:
(i) states a general intent to reimburse;
All
February 19, 1992
Page 68
(ii) designates a City official of your choice as the person to declare official
intent with regard to the expenditures; and
(iii) includes an exhibit describing the expenditures to be reimbursed and
the maximum amount of debt to be issued for such reimbursement.
Please note that in completing Exhibit A, you will need to provide a "general
functional description" of the project to be reimbursed, or identify a fund or account
and its general functional purpose. For example, it will suffice to describe a project
as "streets and roads capital improvement program" or as "parks and recreation
fund — recreational facility capital improvement program."
One further requirement of the rules is that the issuer's declaration of intent may
be relied upon only if it is "reasonable." This means that the reimbursement must
be consistent with the City's budgetary and financial circumstances, i.e., no other
source of funds are allocated on a long -term basis to pay for the expenditures.
Another factor is whether the issuer has a history of failing to reimburse after
declaring an intent to do so. Therefore, it is not advisable to declare official intent
before making every expenditure; only do so n cases where there is a realistic
expectation (and budgetary need) to bond for the expenditure, and where the
principal amount of bonds can be reasonably estimated.
We think that the resolution and forms are self - explanatory (to the degree that these
complex rules can be explained) , but if you have any questions be sure to contact
me or any of the bond approving lawyers in our office.
The resolution form sent to you last August (designed to comply with the proposed
regulations), in most cases will comply with the final regulations, though it contains
certain restrictions that are now unnecessary. If your Council adopted the prior
resolution, it may wish to adopt the enclosed, revised resolution to avoid confusion
and undue limitations on your financing plans. If convenient, we would like to
receive a certified copy of the resolution after its adoption.
A final note of caution is in order. If the City made expenditures it expected to
reimburse from bond proceeds and those expenditures were made before
September 8, 1989, or the project financed was placed in service more than a year
ago, it is not possible to finance those expenditures tax- exempt. If you think this
is a problem for your City, please contact us to see what, if anything, can be done
to reimburse those expenditures.
Yours very truly, •
HOLMES & N, Chartered
B .0
Davi J. K nnedy
cc: Don Ashworth
HOLMES & GRAVEN
2/18/92
SUMMARY OF
REIMBURSEMENT REGULATIONS
TRES. REG. 1 1.103 -18
1111 I . The Reimbursement Rules.
A. General. The reimbursement rules generally apply to
governmental bonds, 501(c) (3) bonds, and private activity bonds used to
finance a governmentally -owned facility. Beginning with such bonds issued
after March 2, 1992, if bond proceeds are used to reimburse an expenditure
made before the bonds were issued, the bond proceeds will not be considered
"spent" unless three basic requirements are met:
1. Declaration of Intent.
(a) General Rule. On or before the date an expenditure
is paid, the issuer or a person or entity authorized to act on its
behalf must declare a reasonable expectation to reimburse the
expenditure with proceeds of a borrowing.
(b) Content of Declaration of Intent. The declaration of
official intent must: •
(I) state that the issuer reasonably expects to
reimburse the expenditure with proceeds of debt to be
incurred by the issuer;
11 (ii) specifically state that it is a declaration of
official intent under Tres. Reg. Section 1.103 -18;
(iii) contain a general functional description of the
project for which the expenditure to be reimbursed is
made, and state the maximum principal amount of debt to
•
be issued for such purposes. The term "project" means a
property, project or program. The description of the
project is sufficient if it identifies the fund or account
from which the expenditure is paid, and describes the
general functional purpose of the fund or account. Some
examples of sufficient project descriptions are: "Highway
capital improvement program;" "school building
renovation;" "parks and recreation fund -- recreational
facility capital improvement program."
Reasonable deviations between the project as described and as
actually reimbursed are acceptable as long as the actual project
is reasonably related in function to the declared project. For
example, an expenditure for hospital equipment is a reasonable
deviation from a project described as "hospital building
improvements." By contrast, an expenditure for rehabilitation
I .
1.7829322
?SRN -8 1
of a city office building is not a reasonable deviation from a
project described as "highway improvements."
(c) Reasonableness of the declaration. The declaration
of intent to reimburse is reasonable if the following conditions are
met :
(i) Budgetary and Financial Circumstances. The
expectation to reimburse must be consistent with the
budgetary and financial circumstances of the issuer at the
time of the declaration. Such consistency is demonstrated
if no funds from sources other than the reimbursement
bonds are (or are reasonably expected to be) reserved or
allocated on a long -term basis for the expenditure.
Sources considered include the issuer and all members of
the same "controlled group" (generally, entities whose
powers are significantly controlled by another entity or
group of entities) .
(ii) Reasonable Expectation. The expectation to
reimburse must be reasonable based on all the relevant
facts and circumstances at the time of the declaration.
Factors include: the issuer's purposes for declaring
official intent, its history of actual reimbursement for
expenditures for which official intent was declared, and-
its actions taken toward reimbursement of the
expenditures . "Blanket" or excessive declarations will not
be reasonable. A pattern of failing to reimburse in the past
41
is one factor indicating that the intent is unreasonable,
though an exception is made for extraordinary
circumstances that were unforeseen and beyond the
issuer's control.
(d) Public Availability. The declaration of intent must
be reasonably available for public inspection within a reasonable
period of time after it is made. This requirement if met if the
declaration is available at the issuer's main administrative office
or customary location of records at least 30 days after the date
of the declaration and continuing until the date the bonds are
issued. The requirement will also be met simply by complying
with state or local law governing the public availability of records
of official acts .
(e) Exceptions.
(i) Emergency expenditures. If an expenditure
was not reasonably foreseeable at least 30 days before its
payment, the intent to reimburse may be declared up to 45
days after the date of the payment.
•
(11) PreliminAry expenditures. No declaration of
official intent is required for preliminary expenditures in
an amount up to 20 percent of the issue price of the
relevant bonds. "Preliminary expenditures" include
87829322 - 2 ,
architectural, engineering, surveying, soil testing, bond •
issuance, and similar costs that are incurred before the
project commences. Land acquisition, site preparation and
similar costs incident to construction are not preliminary
expenditures.
2. Reimbursement Period.
(a) General Rule. The allocation of bond proceeds to
the reimbursement must occur on or after the date of the
expenditure and no later than 1 year after the expenditure was
paid or 1 year after the date the property is placed in service,
whichever is later.
S (b) Method of Allocation. An allocation of bond proceeds
to reimburse a prior expenditure:
U (1) must be evidenced by an entry on the books
ords of the issuer maintained with respect to the
bonds;
(ii) must identify either an actual prior .
expenditure to be reimbursed, or, in the case of a fund or
account, the fund or account from which the expenditure
was paid; and -
(iii) must be effective to relieve the allocated
O proceeds from any restrictions under the relevant legal
documents and applicable state law that apply to unspent
bond proceeds.
•
1111 (c) Abandonment Exception. If a project is abandoned
b efore completion, the time limit for allocation of bond proceeds
to reimburse project expenditures is the later of:
11 (i) 1 year after the date the project is
abandoned; or
11 (ii) 2 years after the last payment of an
expenditure for the abandoned project that is at least
$25,000 or 5 percent of the project cost, whichever is less .
1 1
3. Capital expenditure requirement. The expenditure to be
reimbursed must be a capital expenditure, which means any cost of a
type that is properly chargeable to the capital account under general
federal income tax principles. For the purposes of this regulation,
costs of issuance of the reimbursement bond are treated as capital
expenditures.
B . Anti -abuse Rules .
1. General Rule. A reimbursement allocation is not treated as
an expenditure of bond proceeds if any action or inaction of the issuer
3J829322
FIRM-8 3
is an artifice or device to avoid arbitrage yield restrictions or arbitrage
rebate requirements.
2. Tax Exempt Refunding of Taxable Bonds. In a tax exempt
refunding of a taxable bond, if proceeds of the taxable bond were
allocated to reimburse a previously paid expenditure, such proceeds
are not deemed to have been spent unless the allocation complied with
federal tax laws and reimbursement allocations applicable to tax- exempt
bonds as of the date of the taxable issue. If the taxable bond proceeds
are deemed unspent, such proceeds are subject to "transfer" to the
tax- exempt refunding bond issue.
3. Other Reimbursement Limitations. An issuer cannot treat
proceeds as spent if the proceeds are used directly or indirectly (i)
within 1 year of the allocation to refund a governmental obligation; (11)
within 1 year of the allocation to create or increase the balance in a
sinking fund or replace funds used for such purposes; (iii) within 1
year of the allocation to create or increase the balance in a reserve or
replacement fund or replace funds used for such purposes; or (iv) to
reimburse any person or entity other than the issuer for any
expenditure that was originally paid with proceeds of an obligation of
the issuer (excluding an inter -fund borrowing by the issvler) .
An exception is made where proceeds are placed in a bona fide debt
service fund or are used to pay debt service in the next one - year
period on any obligation of the issuer other than the reimbursement
bonds, or where the proceeds of the original financing were not
reasonably expected to be used as of the date of the original financing
to finance the expenditure.
•
C. Application to Private Activity Bonds . In addition to official
action requirements, all private activity bonds are subject to the anti -abuse
rules described above, except as follows: exempt facility bonds and qualified
small issue bonds are subject only to the general anti -abuse rule described in
B .1. above and the reimbursement limitations described in B.3. (ii) and (iii)
above. As noted in paragraph A., governmentally owned exempt facility
bonds and 501(c) (3) bonds are subject to all the reimbursement rules.
•
D. Effective Date and Transition Rule.
1. Effective Date. The reimbursement and anti -abuse rules
apply to bonds issued after March 2, 1992.
2. Transition Rule Bonds may be issued after March 2, 1992
to reimburse expenditures made after September 8, 1989 and before
March 2, 1992 without a prior declaration of official intent, if there is
objective evidence that at the time the expenditure was paid, the issuer
reasonably expected to reimburse the expenditure with proceeds of a
borrowing. The reasonableness of the expectation is determined as
described in A .1(c) , above.
•
II. Why Regulations Were Issued. The reimbursement regulations were
issued in response to a perceived abuse. The IRS was concerned that a city might
decide to issue bonds to reimburse itself for old expenditures, such as a two -year-
87829322
77.x/4-e 4
d •
il I . old library financed with general funds, and then invest bond proceeds without
regard to rebate or yield restriction requirements until spent on a new project.
These bonds began to be referred to as "pyramid bonds," on the theory that an
issuer could rely on this method to reimburse itself for expenditures as far back as
construction of the pyramids. The IRS has taken the position that under certain
circumstances, the reimbursement is not effective and the bond proceeds are in
reality being issued to finance the new expenditures and should be subject to
applicable yield restriction and rebate requirements. The new regulations are
intended to identify under what circumstances bond _ proceeds used for
reimbursement will be considered "spent" for yield restriction and rebate purposes .
1111 III. The Consequences for Failure to Comely. If an issuer does not comply
with the reimbursement rules, the immediate result is that bond proceeds are not =
il considered "spent." The bond proceeds, wherever they are, will be deemed to be
subject to whatever yield restrictions and rebate requirements are applicable.
Assume, for example, that the issuer allocates $1,000,000 of bond proceeds to an
expenditure made the prior year and no declaration of official intent was made.
A. Rebate. If the issuer fell within the $5,000,000 small issuer
rebate exemption, rebate is not a problem. If the issuer was attempting to
ill
meet the six -month or two -year spenddown test, however, the issuer will be
treated as if it hasn't spent the $1,000,000 of proceeds. This may cause it to
fail the spenddown requirement. If the issue is subject to rebate, it will owe
rebate on the investment of the $1,000,000 even if for its accounting purposes
the issuer considers the money spent.
B . Yield Restriction. Assume the same $1,000,000 reimbursement
allocation made without a valid official intent. Normally, the issuer has a
three -year temporary period for the expenditure of proceeds to be used for
construction or acquisition of a project based on an expectation that all
ill amounts will be spent within that three -year period, and any amounts
remaining after three years may be subject to yield restriction. If amounts
subject to yield restriction are invested at a yield in excess of the yield on the
IP bonds, the bonds become "arbitrage bonds" and lose their tax- exempt status .
Further, if the reimbursement allocation is not spent when made, and in fact
is not spent within three years, the issuer may not be entitled to a temporary
period at all.
i .
i . .
•
• .
•
1
ill
Er - £3829322
FIR4-8 5
MP