2015-03-31_HRA_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 At the request of Chair Maschka, Ms. Ingram reviewed revenue bonds and their options based 2 on debt service and revenues available; and other bond options for gap financing potential, as 3 well as other financing options that may be available for private developer funding through the 4 HRA, temporary financing through a bank or conduit funds through the City, and revenue 5 bonds issued by the HRA, and summarized the various limitations and legalities of each. Ms. 6 Ingram noted that potential buyers of bonds wanted to know how a project was going to be 7 finances, making bonds easier to market.Ms. Ingram noted another concept could be 8 financing a project through use of a Special Benefit Tax for interim revenue before permanent 9 financing was established. Ms. Ingram noted that the City of Roseville also has Port Authority 10 available allowing for other bond issuance capabilities, which in some cases may prove more 11 flexible. 12 13 At the request of Member Wall, Ms. Ingram reviewed the differences in city and county 14 HRA’s based on two entirely different Acts and specific provisions. 15 16 Further discussion ensued regarding the differences in HRA’s and Economic Development 17 Authorities (EDA’s) and their administration, limitations, and options, and their relationship to 18 and with a City Council; authority in issuing General Obligation bonds based on the type of 19 project; andfederal, state or other agency grants available for redevelopment. 20 21 At the request of MemberEtten, Ms. Ingram noted the different tools at the disposal of an 22 EDA versus an HRA, with the EDA Act granted powers under the HRA Statute, but an HRA 23 not having reverse capabilities. 24 25 At the request of Ms. Kelsey, Ms. Ingram reviewed levy differentiation between an EDA and 26 HRA, with the EDA levy coming from the City’s General Fund, not in addition to other levies 27 the City would levy on its citizens; but the HRA levy available up to a certain percentage and a 28 separate levy from the City. Ms. Ingram reviewed the powers of an EDA and her observations 29 of advantages and disadvantages of both EDA’s and HRA’s, depending on the specific needs 30 of a community. 31 32 At the request of Commissioner Wall, Ms. Ingram briefly reviewed Eminent Domain powers 33 available under current law, and their limited use for redevelopment. 34 35 Chair Maschka thanked Ms. Ingram for the information; and Ms. Ingram reminded 36 Commissioners that she was always available to responds to their questions via e-mail. 37 38 39 40 41 Ms. Kelsey introduced ECHO Executive Director Lillian McDonald, present in tonight’s 42 audience, as she summarized the request detailed in the staff report dated February 17, 2015. 43 44 45 Member Wall noted the previous discussion with the HRA Attorney, suggested this would 46 request seemed to provide a perfect opportunity for the HRA to leverage its dollars through 47 applying for grant dollars for this type of project versus spending its own money. 48 49 Ms. McDonald responded that grant applications should prove very promising for this non- 50 profit foundation; however, she clarified that grant funding would be used provide additional 51 funding to balance that from partners, such as the Roseville HRA. As noted in the attachment 52 outlining ECHO, Ms. McDonald reviewed the work of this eleven year old organization in 53 partnering with bi-lingual ambassadors to invest in communities. Ms. McDonald advised that 54 her approach was to find balanced funding opportunities;including reaching out to the