11/6/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

approximately $4.8 million (assessed value, based on an estimate by Property Appraiser David Nolte). The County's portion is approximately $3.7 million and the City's is a little over $1 million. In terms of taxes, that would mean just under $90,000 per year would be removed from the ad valorem tax rolls. Administrator Chandler pointed out the suggested acquisition areas on a site map projected on the ELMO. He stressed that living facilities are not included in the proposal being made at this time. The proposal calls for the County to acquire Tract 2, which amounts to a little over 39 acres. The City would acquire Tracts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, which amounts to approximately 31 acres and lease them back to the County. Of the acquired tracts, about 53 acres would then be incorporated into an overall negotiated long-term lease with the Dodgers. The tracts to the north would not be involved in the lease -back inasmuch as they are not essential to spring training activities and the "level playing field" concept. Administrator Chandler then moved to the financing aspects of the proposed acquisition. The County would anticipate a revenue bond issue as a primary source of funding. An old bond issue would be defeased. The present debt service (about $840,000 annually) is covered by a pledge of the 1/2 cent sales tax. Therefore, if the Board of County Commissioners concurs and the old bond issue is defeased, the County would be able to consider that Y2 cent sales tax for debt service on the new bonds issued to pay for the Dodger purchase. He clarified that he is not recommending using the entire $840,000 at this time, it is just a benchmark. The annual debt service on a $3.7 million revenue bond issue would be about $450,000, based on the prevailing rates as of 2 weeks ago. There are other alternatives such as the 4'h and 5' cents of the tourist tax. The way the law is presently structured, however, the 4' and 5'h cents are not available for "acquiring" stadiums. Bond counsel, therefore, cannot advise use of that funding source at the present time. Administrator Chandler pointed out that another very critical consideration is ad valorem taxes. There would be no taxes under the leasehold agreement as set forth. On September 11, 1998, the Second District Court of Appeals issued an opinion that totally clouded the ability to consider that there would be a property tax exemption. Recent passage of Amendment 10 may provide some relief and the ability to consider this type of leasehold provision an exemption of taxes. If that is not the case, neither the City nor the County would have the ability to waive taxes. There is one provision in State law that is currently applicable to a number of other cities and counties that is not applicable to us, which we would like to have the ability to utilize. Where sports facilities have been November 6, 1998 3 BOOK .1_ _ AU;, z.