Loading...
HRA 11/13/1997 - 29804� � �`. CITY OF FRIDLEY HOII3ING & RLDEVELOPMEN'P AUTHORITY MEETING NOVII�ER 13 , 19 97 CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Commers called the November 13, 1997, Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Larry Commers, Virginia Schnabel, Jim McFarland, John Meyer Duane Prairie Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Jim Casserly, Financial Consultant Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator Craig Ellestad, Accountant Councilmember Bob Barnett P_�.PPROVAL OF OCTOBER 9. 1997. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING• MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the October 9, 1997, Housing and Redevelopment Authority minutes as written. �PON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYL, CHAIRPERSON COI�RS DLCLARTsD THE MOTION CARRIED �l�TAWIMO�'3LY. CONSENT AG�TDA • 1. AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT AND �.CKNOWLEDGMENT. COLUMBIA PAR.K PROPERTIES 2. CONSIDER ACOUISITION OF 1545 - 75TH AVENUE N.E. Mr. Meyer asked that this item be removed from the consent agenda. 3. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING PARCELS FOR PHASE II OF THE HOUSING 13.EPLACEMENT PROGR.AM 4. �EVENUE AND EXPENSES Nfr. Ellestad provided copies of additional expenses submitted for approval as outlined in his memo of November 13, 1997. MOTION by Mr. McFarland, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve items 1, 3, and 4 of the consent agenda including the additional , � HOUSING & REDEVEI�OPMENT AiJTHORITY MTG. , NOVEr�ER 13, 1997 PAGE 2 expenses as submitted by Mr. Ellestad in his memo of November 13, 1997. IIPON.A VOICB VOTL, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON CONIl��RS DLCLARLD THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMO�SLY. �1CTION ITSNlS : 5. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT TO CO1�T�'RACT FOR EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATIONS. MEPC AMERICAN PROPERTZES Mr. Commers stated a copy of the resolution was included in the agenda packet. The only issue he has is what the situation would be if anything would develop with one of the current people they have talked to about the site. How does that interfere with this exclusive right of negotiation? Ms. Dacy atated the second amendment extends the terms of the original agreement to the end of January, 1998. A 100,000 square foot building is proposed on the western part of the site. MEPC did draw a master plan to accommodate another user. One of two scenarios was contemplated. One was a 250,000 square foot � building or two buildings each with 125,000 square feet with the associated ramps. She thought an extension of the amendment would not preclude continuing talks with another entity regarding the site. The city manager, the executive director and Mr. Jellison of MEPC met with another user about the master plan and showed the alternatives they were evaluating. An extension of the amendment provides the HRA with time to negotiate terms of a one-story tech- flex type of development. The terms of what happens with the rema.inder of the property would still be up to the HRA to negotiate. Mr. Commers asked if those negotiations have to go through MEPC. That may be a different issue. Ms. Dacy stated the bottom line is that the aecond amendment would not preclude anything with another entity. Between now and the end of January, there will be two vehicles the HRA would need to approval in January - the development proposal for the one-story development at the west end of the site and then another contract where the HRA can establish the development for the rest of the property. Through that second vehicle, the HRA can define the terms of how to handle MEPC or another entity. She thought the HRA's position was preserved. Mr. Commers stated in other worda, even though the HRA would be giving MEPC exclusive rights to negotiate for the development of ^ the property, Ms. Dacy does not believe the HRA would have to go through MEPC if they were able to develop something on their own. � HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTSORITY MTG., NOVII�ER 13, 1997 PAGE 3 Ms. Dacy stated this was correct. Mr. Meyer asked why MEPC would be willing to aettle for that. They liave always talked about the full site that they wanted to develop. why should MEPC settle for one corner and pass their opportunity for the rest of the site? Ms. Dacy stated they had just begun talking with MEPC on the arrangements for this particular site. They discussed that there may have to be two agreements - one for the tech-flex and one for the rest of the property. She also thought that by the end of November they would have a definitive answer from the company that will help in that regard. Mr. Meyer is correct that MEPC would be concerned about that. On the other hand, we have not had the opportunity to explore all of those options with MEPC at this time. Mr. Commers stated now is when the leverage exists. It should be clear now as to what will happen before signing something. Now is the time to do this rather than after signing. If a misunder- standing then arises, it usually evolves into a bigger problem. �� Ms. Dacy stated an alternative is to table consideration of the second amendment to the December meeting. Staff can then clarify those isaues and come back in December. Mr. Meyer asked if this building would be built with MEPC money as a speculative money. Ms. Dacy stated yes. 1�PC plans to go to their board for approval. Then they will initiate the planning process with the City in January. In the meantime, they will find a tenant for the building. ' Mr. Meyer stated N�PC will start the ball rolling. Ms. Dacy stated yes. Essentially, the agreement is that the HRA will sell the property to MEPC for construction. Ms. Schnabel asked if MEPC was looking at one tenant for this building. Ms. Dacy stated, based on their experience in Golden Valley, you may see at the maximum three tenants. In Golden Valley, Cyber Optics comprises 2/3 of the building with a smaller company in the remaining portion. They usually seek 50,000 to 75,000 square foot tenants. �� Ms. Schnabel asked if this was a rental office space as opposed to �•-, fiOUSING & REDEVELOP1�iT AIITHORITY MTG. , NOVII�ER 13, 1997 PAGE 4 condominium type of office space. Ms. Dacy stated this was correct. The space will be leased. Mr. Meyer asked if their was any more information on MEPC and their fate. Ms. Dacy stated they had no additional information beyond what Mr. Jellison gave at the last meeting. In terms of timing, it makes sense for them to continue with the portfolio they have developed. Beyond that, that is all the information staff has at this time. Mr. Commers stated he had asked Mr. Jellison that question. Mr. Jellison indicated he anticipated MEPC would continue as is with the management in place. There are however no guarantees. There is some risk associated in that we could be dealing with someone else or with a different philosophy. Mr. Commers asked Mr. Casserly if proceeding with th.e second amendment would jeopardize arrangements with another company. Mr. Casserly stated, unless there is another potential user that � is very close to making a decision, it will take us some weeks to sort out the vehicles we are going to be using to continue our relationship with MEPC. It appears now we will have a single development agreement for a specific development and have another agreement something like the agreement for continued negotiations for the balance. It is in that second agreement that we will make provisions for other potential uses. Mr. Commers stated his concern is that the HRA is giving a contract for exclusive negotiations, which means to him that they cannot negotiate or that no other user can negotiate with the city but that it must be done.through MEPC. He wondered if there should be an exception or a provision held out with respect to the business with which they have had some discussion. He was not sure that they should be forced to deal with N�PC. Mr. Casserly stated this could be accommodated in the second amendment. He thought there was some reference to that in the original agreement which is being extended. He will make a provision in the second amendment that excludes what has been described. With the HRA's permission, he can simply add that to the document. The HRA consensus was that this was acceptable. MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. McFarland, to approve a n Resolution Authorizing Execution and Delivery of a Second Amendment to the Contract for Exclusive Negotiations By and � HOUSING & REDEVELOPI��NT AUTHORITY MTG., NOVII�ER 13, 1997 PAGE 5 , Between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and For the: City of Fridley and N�PC American Properties, Inc. Ms. Schnabel stated they had talked briefly about tabling this item until the December meeting. She asked if they should table this until they see the final draft. Mr. Commers stated he thought it would be okay with the change. Mr. Meyer stated he was assuming that MEPC might have an objection. Mr. Casserly stated he did not think so. They are focuaed on getting the first structure going. They understand very well what the opportunity may be for another large user and simply want to be able to coordinate and participate in that. That is the way this second agreement is designed. Mr. Commers stated this raises another issue to make sure that what we would have on the table with MEPC and what we might have on the table with another potential developer are compatible. It seemed to him that the proposals are different, and he would be � particularly interested to make sure that they have the assurance that they are compatible in terms of the parking, treatments, etc. Mr. Casserly stated this also includes the design, appearance, architecture, easements, etc. The HRA will have to maintain careful supervision and control over this process. We may have to make things integrate. Mr. Meyer asked if the presence of the tech-flex building precludes another party from coming in. This is at a crossroads. We have the option of not renewing the contract. Ms. Dacy stated that was the purpose of the meeting held several weeks ago. She was not at that meeting. She thought it was made clear about the type of development. It was a development that could enhance and work hand-in-hand with another entity because of the nature of their spin-off types of companies, and they could become a tenant. There was no indication that it was the criteria that would throw out consideration of the site. Mr. Commers stated they had asked this company to respond within a specific timeframe, namely the end of November. He asked if they could still expect a response by that time. Ms. Dacy stated she thought so. � Mr. Casserly stated he was not sure we have been essentially operating in good faith with them and that they have been HOIISING & REDEVELOPMEDTT AIITHORITY MTG., NOVEL��ER 13, 1997 PAGE 6 operating in good faith with us for the last several months. The first amendment expired August 1 and was extended to November 1. MEPC has been going out and putting together plans based on an ongoing relationship. This is a pro forma exercise. The agreement we are extending is not the plan that we are now talking about pursuing. The agreement envisions a multi-story office building. The first building we are talking about is not a multi- story office building. He was not sure it was essential that this be extended. This tends to help formalize our relationship. Mr. Commers stated the first paragraph of the memo states the purpose of the extension is to provide additional time to complete negotiations for development of a one-story 100,000 square foot office/showroom building. He did not think they could say MEPC is not meeting the requirements of the contract which calls for a multi-story office building. Mr. Casserly stated it was a question of whether or not to try to do a very extensive redevelopment contract or start laying out a number of terms to be considered in the development contract for the HRA's approval. They have concluded they are still putting together the business terms of that agreement. While they were � doing that, they thought it would be prudent to give more time to put the business terms together and, during that time period, provide some level of security for MEPC to continue their existing arrangement. The existing arrangement describes something different than what we are presently negotiating. Rather than try to go back and renew the entire contract for exclusive negotiations, he believes the time is better serviced trying to figure out the business terms for the first building. This agreement is changing while we are trying to put the next deal together. They are having quite a bit of discussion about how that deal should look, what should MEPC's role will be with the balance of that site, what should we provide them, what ahould they expect from us, what should we expect from them. They have not sorted out all of those issues. That was the reason for simply trying to extend this agreement even though they know this agreement is being changed through discussions. With the joint meeting held with the City Council, they are looking at a different approach for a portion of the property. They know this agreement is not working but it gives MEPC a sense of a continued relationship while we are sorting this out. We are negotiating now to try to piece these things together. Mr. Casserly stated, if the HRA feels comfortable leaving it open, he did not think it would affect their efforts to put a project together. We have given MEPC encouragement to go ahead with this first building. MEPC would like to do that building and would �-.� like to have a continuing relationship. It is not intended to try to answer those questions, but to suggest this ongoing interaction � �OUSING & RIDEVELOPN�TT AUTHORITY MTG. , NOVEN�ER 13, 1997 PAGE 7 that we have. Mr. Meyer asked if Mr. Casserly thought the HRA had�a moral obligation to stay the course. Mr. Casserly stated he thought so at least while they were trying to sort out the business terms. If MEPC insists on business terms that the HRA finds unsatisfactory, then we have no obligation. At this point, we have worked with MEPC for two years, and we are trying to put together the first building. Mr. Meyer stated, if he signs a contract or agreement to sell his house through a realtor for 90 days, he cannot negotiation with another individual who comes along individually with an offer. In this situation, why should MEPC who seemingly has an exclusive on this property be happy with another client coming to us and us talking to them about working out other parts of the exclusive area in which MEPC has invested time and effort. It seems odd to him. Are we building in problems with other people down the line? Mr. Casserly stated everything has been above board in terms of our conversations with MEPC. They have been apprised of our � conversations with others. He saw this as being very short term. As a practical matter, there will not be a resolution with anyone else in that time period. Mr. Commers stated there is the possibility of a proposal by the end of November. It would seem to him that the more flexibility they have the better it is. Mr. Casserly stated he can provide for that is the HRA wants to do so. He did not think it was critical that they do this at all. Mr. Commers asked if MEPC asked for this. Ms. Dacy stated she thought it was an extension of the joint meeting in July where there was an August 1 deadline and consensus about option C which was a one-story 100,000 square foot building and a multi-story 225,000 square foot office user. With that expiration date on August 1 and with the meeting in the middle of July, the consensus was to extend the contract to give MEPC time to do the planning with their board, etc. Pentair then came back anrl had done two or three proposals. Also, during this time there was the proposed changeover in ownership. And as a practical matter, the architects were backed up with other clienta and did not have time to develop a plan. Staff was not presented with a concept plan until the next week. n Mr. Commers stated he thought the resolution should include a provision to exclude the people we have been dealing with. If � HOUSING & REDEVELOPI�TT Ai7T80RITY MTG. , NOVII�ER 13, 1997 PAGE 8 that is agreeable with MEPC, bring the contract back next month to sign. Mr. Casserly stated he could do that. He had planned at the December meeting to have the concept for the HRA in terms of laying out the business terms for the first building, the terms of what the project would entail, and what the concept would be for a continuing relationship. Their attorney has ideas to run by us. They are not going to do anything precipitous in the next 30 days. The HRA's consensus was that this would be acceptable. Mr. Meyer rescinded his motion to approve the resolution. OM TION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. McFarland, to table this item to the December meeting. IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON CONIl�RS DSCLARLD � MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOII3LY. 6. �,enLr,ryrnrT r�n�TeTn�uT�7r'� pnT T(`Y FnR SUBORDINATION AGREEMII�TTS FOR HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM n Mr. Commers stated staff had explained quite well the problems encountered when someone wants to refinance their first mortgage. This sounds like what a financial institution would want. Mr. McFarland stated a financial institution would not be so liberal. Under Schedule A, Loan Subordination Requirements, he asked if #6 meant 100% of the market value of the property before or after the improvements. Mr. Fernelius stated this would be the after improvement value not to exceed 100%. Mr. Commers stated he thought that should be pointed out. The way he reads it is that the first mortgage would not exceed 100%. Mr. McFarland stated the first mortgage and the HRA's would not exceed 100� of the value of the improved property. MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. McFarland, to approve a Resolution Establishing a Policy for the Subordination of Housing Loans of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley; Providing for the Delegation of Certain Power and Duties, amending Schedule A, Loan Subordination Requirements, #6 to read, "The combined loan-to-value ratio of the new first mortgage and the Authority's debt shall not exceed 100% of the n market value of the improved property." ^ 80USING & REDEVELOPMENT ALTrHORITY MTG., NOVEL�ER 13, 1997 PAGE 9 Mr. Commers asked if this will cover all of the HR.Ae's programs. Mr. Fernelius stated this would cover all of the housing rehabilitation programs funded through the HRA. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON CONIl�RS DECLARLD THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIM0�3LY. 7. C9NSIDER ACOUISITION OF 1545 - 75TH AVENUE N.E. Mr. Fernelius stated this is another scattered site acquisition. The property was identified through a windshield study done this summer which was an exterior condition study. The house is located at 1545 - 75th Avenue N.E. The cross streets are Arthur to the west and Lakeside to the east. The property itself is rather small with 2 bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen, and unfinished basement with approximately 720 square feet. It has suffered from a considerable amount of deferred maintenance. The siding is fairly deteriorated. There is some significant interior remodeling that needs to be done. That came from the appraisal report that was done before making an offer on the property. � Mr. Fernelius stated the house is set back from the street considerably. It•is beyond the typical 35 foot setback so it stands out in comparison to surrounding properties. It is also considerably lower in value than the surrounding properties. The assessed value for tax purposes in $61,900. The appraised value is $59,900. Staff negotiated with the owner a price of $60,000 which is within the guidelines discussed before. The median value of approximately 17 properties immediately adjacent to this property is $102,000 so this is significantly less than that. This would be a voluntary acquisition. The owner would not be required to sell. No relocation benefits would be paid. The intention would be to tear down the property. Mr. Fernelius stated they had discussed in the past using some kind of code enforcement on a property like this. There are some minor issues of outside storage. We could not address the maintenance or the actual condition of the property through our existing code. We don't have that ability. It is not in a hazardous condition where we could really take significant action against the owner. This is a logical step to address a property that will probably continue to decline in value and condition, and to step in and curb the potential blight and decline. Mr. Meyer stated he was still concerned about the appraised value of this house and other houses. It seems there is a floor of $60,000 per house in the city as representing the value of the � least desirable, smallest, most rundown houses in the city. He does not understand that. He also does not understand that his � SOUSING 6 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., NOVEr�ER 13, 1997 PAGE 10 home is assessed for tax purposes is about double this. The area where the home is located is assessed at double this property. According to the assessor, the value of this house which is in such a shabby condition that it needs public money to demolish it and to save the neighborhood is taxed at the same rate as his house. It seems very odd that we have this very shocking situation of assessed valuation of our properties. He does not understand how we can have such an equal taxation based on square footages with one house representing a shabby house that needs public money and another which is a viable home. Mr. Meyer asked when Mr. Jones purchased this house. Mr. Fernelius stated he did not know. There is an existing mortgage balance of about $57,000, so he thought the purchase would have been fairly recent. Mr. Meyer asked when the assessed valuation was last adjusted. Mr. Fernelius stated he did not know. The assessor goes through properties on a four-year cycle. He did not know when the assessor went through this property. He would assume that the � valuation is consistent with similar properties and is based on the sales of comparable properties. He was surprised to learn that median values in Fridley in the appraisal report for the first six months of 1997 was over $97,000. Home values have continued to appreciate in�the city. Mr. Meyer stated, if someone can get $60,000 for a house in this condition, they are doing well. He asked when the mortgage was taken out. Mr. Commers stated it could not have been too long ago because there is not much equity. Ms. Schnabel stated the owners could have refinanced the property. Mr. Meyer asked, f�r a house valued at $60,000, would a bank give a $57,000 loan. Mr. McFarland stated he did not think anyone would. He asked if the property was financed with a contract for deed. Mr. Fernelius stated he understands it is a mortgage lender. Mr. Commers stated in this case we have an appraisal. We have gone over the subjectiveness of those. The appraiser has put on this value, the assessor who at some time in the last four years � has put on a similar value, plus there is a$57,000 mortgage so yet another party thought that value was in this general area. � HOUSING � REDEVELOPMENT AUTBORITY MTG., NOVII�ER 13, 1997 PAGE 11 Ms. Schnabel stated included in that $60,000 is the cost of the land. Almost 50% of the cost is for the land. Mr. Commers stated $34,700 is the cost for 720 square feet which is approximately $50/square foot. To rebuild at that aize would cost approximately $70,000 to $80,000. Mr. McFarland stated it is possible that it has deteriorated in two or three years. It is not large. It depends on how many people occupy the structure. He asked if properties are assessed at 100% of the value. Mr. Fernelius stated the law states properties are to be assessed within 90% to 95% of the value. Mr. McFarland stated the assessor says the property is worth more than this. Mr. Meyer stated he thought there is something wrong that they are paying $60,000 for this property. This price seems to be the bottom figure for the properties in the worst condition in the � city. Mr. McFarland asked for the date of the appraisal. Mr. Fernelius stated the appraisal is dated September 25, 1997. Mr. McFarland asked if the appraisal was obtained just for the transfer to the HRA. Mr. Fernelius stated this was correct. Staff as a practice get an appraisal. They do not share that appraisal with the seller. This is used as a basis for negotiating. Mr. McFarland stated the seller's appraisal could come in higher than this. Mr. Meyer stated he disagreed with public monies being used to buy properties in this condition. Ms. Schnabel asked if this was habitable. Mr. Fernelius stated the house is habitable to his knowledge. The home is owner occupied. Mr. Commers stated, as we go through this, the more information staff can get for the HRA the better. This could include the n financing, etc. That is all public information. Calling to find out what it is would be helpful. Real estate seems to be selling, ^ HOUSING 6 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG'., NOV�ER 13, 1997 PAGE 12 and it seems that the values as listed in the newspaper are going up. Mr. Meyer asked if there was also a high mortgage on the last property. That property was in even worse shape. Mr. McFarland stated there are a lot of factors. We have some home buyers that are not that astute and invest all their money in a home. Then when something major goes wrong, they have no money to make the repairs and the condition continues to deteriorate. They get into the position where they let the house go back and they would be better off. Mr. Fernelius stated standards are getting tougher, particularly with FHA insurance. This year, they have tightened their standards even more. For that reason, lenders are getting properties back that are in poor conditions. They are trying to correct that, but it does not solve this particular problem. Ms. Schnabel asked if this was a buildable lot. Mr. Fernelius stated yes. ^ MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. McFarland, to authorize staff to purchase the property at 1545 - 74th Avenue N.E. for $60,000 and to authorize the Executive Director to sign all documents necessary to complete the purchase. � UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MS. SCFIIJAHLL, NIIt. MCFARLAND AND NII2. CONII�RS VOTING AYE, AND NIIt. MEYER VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON COHIl�RS DLCLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A MAJORITY VOTL. INFORMATION ITEMS• 8. PARTICIPATION IN MINNESOTA SOLUTIONS REDEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE Mr. Commers stated this item is for informational purposes. We have been participating but we are being asked to renew or make a contribution to the program. Mr. Fernelius stated the HRA is being asked to make a contribution to the Minnesota Solutions Redevelopment Initiative as part of a two-year work program that they have identified. He has attended a few of the meetings over the last several months. It aeems like a very good group given a lot of the things that are going on in the legislature. Discuasions that we have had about our housing program are a part of this work plan. He thought that many of the issues that we are concerned about can be asaisted through this group. They are trying to create a strong voice for redevelopment. The contribution is $800 each year for the nex� �� SOIISING � REDEVELOPN�L�TT AIITEORIT3[ MTG. , NOVEr�ER 13, 1997 PAGE 13 two years. OM TION by Mr. MeFarland, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the expenditure of $1,600 ($800 per year for two years) and to approve participation in the Minnesota Solutions Redevelopment Initiative. �PON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER30N COr�R3 DECLARED TI� MOTION CARRIED IINAI�IMOIISLY. 9, M��ry HOUSING REPORT Mr. Fernelius reviewed the Loan Origination Report and the Loan Servicing Report. For loans serviced, they have gone over the $2 million mark in total principle issued, and as of the end of September have an outstanding principle of $1,886,617. For loan originations for October, 65 loans were issued. The HRA has issued a total of $565,814 in loans. There are also some MHFA loans and CDBG grants that have been issued as well. The total loans and grants as of the end of October is $613,980. Mr. McFarland asked how many of these were delinquent. �.-� Mr. Fernelius stated, as he recalls, they had approximately 9 loans that were in default as of the end of September. A majority of those were no more than one month behind and many of those people make up their payments and become current. Mr. Meyer asked staff to explain a deferred loan. Mr. Fernelius stated a deferred loan does not have to be paid back until the progerty is sold. These are offered in the Hyde Park neighborhood and as part of the last resort program. Mr. Commers asked what percentage of loans were delinquent. Mr. McFarland stated it was a bit high but they don't consider loans delinquent until after 30 days. They may have a higher risk group. It is probably within the norm is you eliminate those that are less than 30 days past due. Mr. Commers aeked how it was working with CRF servicing. Mr. Fernelius stated it was working very well. They have received no complaints from the borrowers. The reports are timely and thorough. The payments are on time. They are very reasonably priced for what they charge for their services. OTHER BIISINESS• 9. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEWSLETTER � HOUSING & REDEVELOPN�TT AUTHORITY MTG., NOVII�ER 13, 1997 PAGE 14 Mr. Commers stated a copy of the Community Development Newsletter was included in the agenda packet for informational purposes. 10. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING LOAN FUND POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Ms. Dacy stated the executive director asked her and Mr. Fernelius to distribute a memo to bring the HRA up-to-date this. The Onan Corporation pursuing a$2.5 million project to purchase additional equipment to create a product line for generators used in marine and recreational vehicles. Mr. Burns put together a successful application with the state to obtain $360,000 from Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) funds. This is the same program that the city applied for and received for McGlynn's new facility in Fridley. One of the application requirements is that the city has to write revolving loan guidelines for this particular type of program. Mr. Fernelius is still in the process of coming up with the guidelines. Those guidelines will be discussed with the City Council on November 24. Mr. Burns wanted to make sure the HRA understood the guidelines being put together. It does not affect the HRA. Before you is a � copy of the guidelinea from the City of Pipestone. Mr. Commers stated he noted the job retention issue. He thought they already had in the existing programs some kind of statement on bringing in new jobs. Ms. Dacy stated the city does not have specific job creation criteria. The state as part of tax increment projects does require that development agreements state the number of jobs the businesses will be creating. Mr. Commers thought this should be compatible with that. Ms. Dacy stated they had diacussed that today. In other words, our guidelines could be consistent with the TIF approach. 11. TNDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 14 Mr. Commers stated the HRA has before them a letter from Dr. Mary Nelson, Superintendent, Independent School District 14, regarding the school district referendum renewal. Ms. Dacy stated the copy of the letter was provided to let the HRA know that staff had received it. The annual agreement for school district refunds will be on the agenda in December. n Mr. Commers stated, as he recalled from last year's discussion, the school district loses in aome way other credits when given � HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., NOVII�ER 13, 1997 PAGE 15 this refund. Mr. Casserly stated, if the school could lose other state subsidies or support, we should find that out. Mr. Commers stated part of what we are giving them may come from other sources or they may lose money from other sources. We should find a balance. 12. 1998 MEETINGS Ms. Dacy stated the January meeting is scheduled for January 8. The week before that is part of the Holiday week. She asked if it would be okay to hold that meeting on January 15. Mr. Commers stated he would be gone that week and would prefer to have the meeting on January 22. Ms. Dacy staff were looking at the dates for meetings on the 1997 calendar. The HRA and City Council meetings fall on the same week. Staff has to prepare two agenda packets the week before in nine months out of twelve. She asked if the HRA meeting could be � changed to the first Thursday of the month which would reduce the occurrence of having two agenda packets in one week to.five months out of twelve. Mr. McFarland stated he would prefer that if a change is made that it be to the third Thursday of the month. Ms. Dacy stated she will report back on this in December. e MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to adjourn the meeting. IIPON A VOICFS VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPBRSON CO1�sRS DLCLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE NOYENIDER 13, 1997, HO'0'SING AND REDEVELOPN�N'P AUTHORITY MELTING ADJOURNED AT 8:53 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � �-u� C���,��1�� Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary �