2009-10-20_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes – Monday, October 20, 2009 Page 6 bullet points under that section 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, Section 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 still met. Staff advised that they would draft several alternatives for consideration to address that intent in Section 4.n. (i.e., 20% of median income; based on current market and adjusted annually by state). Member Pust addressed fees in the draft Policy (page 4, Sections 4.02 and 5.02) and suggested revising the language that, whether the project went forward or not, the association should be accountable for all City fees related to the HIA or up to a maximum of 2%, whichever is the greatest. Member Pust advised that the intent was not make money, but to not lose money in providing this opportunity; and should include the City’s hard and soft fees as well as those fees similar to any other private developer, including staff time, since this isn’t a public benefit to everyone, just the association and therefore, shouldn’t be a public cost; even though there would be a bigger public benefit in the long-run. Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would consult with the HRA Attorney and review the parameters in setting s firm fee as part of the assessment; however, that a reasonable estimate should be available in determining those actual costs. Chair Maschka addressed page 1, Section 2.02(A) related to owner-occupied housing, citing an example in Little Canada, where people were being forced to leave due to the cost; and opined that defining rental and owner-occupied housing was crucial, with the entire purpose of the HIA was to help people. Chair Maschka questioned if by shortening the bond term, it was making it more difficult and whether a twenty (20) year term was preferable. Chair Maschka expressed his personal concern that the term may be counterproductive to the purpose, with it being about cash flow for those seeking assistance, and needing the longest term possible. Ms. Kelsey advised that this had been a major discussion piece, but that it was staff’s resulting decision that this bond should not be treated any differently than other bonds issued by the City. Ms. Kelsey further advised that, in consultation with the City’s Finance Director Chris Miller, the City’s bond rating was currently very high, which was a substantial value to the City, and part of that rating was based on the City not exceeding that fifteen (15) year bond term; with potential jeopardy to the City’s bond rating by using any longer term Chair Maschka opined that an HIA bond would be very small in relationship to the entire bonding authority of the City. Ms. Kelsey advised that HRA funds could also be utilized, negating the need for HIA bonding, given 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 curve for this first project, advised that staff would spend more time investigating the actual situation 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.