2009-11-17_Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 HRA Meeting Minutes — Monday, October 20, 2009 Page 6 bullet points under that secrion and to be included in a development agreement and disbursement agreement. Ms. Kelsey advised that the Policy had been reviewed by the HRA Attorney (Steve Bubol) to ensure it provided the best protection for the City and its taxpayers. Member Pust suggested that the draft Policy, page 3, Secrion 4.n be broader, rather than specific to the State's first time homebuyer program criteria, in case that program was not always in place, and allowing that the intent is srill met. ��`� ° Staff advised that they would draft several alternarives for consideration to ress that intent in Section 4.n. (i.e., 20% of inedian income; based on current market and ��, annually by state). � _ Member Pust addressed fees in the draft Policy (page 4, Secrior revising the language that, whether the project went fonvard o�a accountable for all City fees related to the HIA or up to a�� greatest. Member Pust advised that the intent was not �e m providing this opporlunity; and should include the C�'� hard fees similar to any other private developer, includin� �t�'�;' e to everyone, just the associarion and therefore, shouldri'�' would be a bigger public benefit in the long-run. �:� Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would consult with the parameters in setting s firm fee as parf; ssment h should be available in deternuning tho� > �nd 5.02) an � d the associarion s d be � of 2%, whiche��r is the but to not lose money in �ft fees as well as those this isn't a public benefit � cost even though there �Attorney and review the , that a reasonable estimate Chair Maschka addressed page 1, Secri 2. A) relat�c� to owner-occupied housing, ciring an example in Little Canada, where people e being forced to leave due to the cost and opined that defining rental and owner-occupied.�lousing was crucial, with the entire purpose of the HIA was to help pe��l�� :Chair Maschka i�u��stioned if by shortening the bond term, it was making it more '�� ''�� whether a tw.��ity (20) year term was preferable. Chair Maschka eapressed his �tersonal c cern that the .term may be counterproducrive to the purpose, with it �y. being abou,t c�.��k� flow f,"thS�s� ��1�ig assistance, and needing the longest term possible. Ms. Kelsey ad`�� "�� at this had been a major discussion piece, but that it was staff's resulting decision that thi shouJd not be treated any differently than other bonds issued by the Cit�1 `��.°Kelsey '�� r'�clvised that, in consultarion with the City's Finance Director Chris �. �Vf'�1'i�"�; �4� ��'ty's bont� rating was currently very high, which was a substantial value to the City, and p�� of th��rating was based on the City not exceeding that fifteen (15) year bond term; with p', nrial jeopardy to the City's bond raring by using any longer term Chair Ma a opined that an HIA bond would be very small in relationship to the enrire bondin thority of the City. ;��N��Kelsey advised that HRA funds could also be urilized, negating the need for HIA bonding, ��en that only twenty-five (25%) of the homeowners as Westwood Village II ended up needing financial assistance, rather than the original assumptions, making such financing viable. Ms. Kelsey, based on the learning cuive for this first project, advised that staff would spend more time invesrigating the actual situarion to determine the actual financial risk involved. Further discussion included the need to continue building the HRA funds in order to provide this type of assistance; risk determinations; and the relationship between prepayments and a bond issue.