Laserfiche WebLink
10 <br />9. Information, Reports and Other Business <br /> <br />a. Discuss Options for Reimbursement of Fees Associated with the Review of <br />Funding Options for Private and Non-Profit Housing Projects. <br /> <br />Executive Director Bennett noted that in the la st year, the HRA has b een in the process of <br />reviewing two projects that are requesting the HRA’s pa rticipation and support to <br />promote and facilitate housing renovation for large multi-family complexes. The support <br />and facilitation of this type of renovation is a key goal of the HRA as part of their <br />Housing Plan. Both issues require the review of state legislative powers as well as <br />financial analysis that is beyond the scope of staff. This ha s generated outside legal fees <br />from the HRA attorney’s office Krass Monroe. The analysis and review of the projects is <br />with no guarantee that the projec ts will be approved in the future. Therefore, there is a <br />risk that those fees may become part of the cost of doing business of the HRA. However, <br />if the projects were approved, the HRA woul d be able to recover all of their costs <br />associated with the front end review of the pr ojects. There cu rrently is no HRA policy <br />to recover preliminary costs for doing business evaluation of projects. <br /> <br />Each community deals with these preliminary costs differently base d upon their specific <br />goals and strategies to promote housing renova tion and redevelopment. If a community <br />wants to be a partner and promote housing reno vation and redevelopment, there is a cost <br />of business to get that project to move forw ard. However, if a community wants to be a <br />reviewer and facilitator in pr ocessing requests, than all up front costs should be borne by <br />the requester. The HRA needs to consider what they want their role in the process to <br />be and should consider what their goal and mission is prior to establishing a policy <br />on requiring up front deposits to review possible housing projects. <br /> <br />Member Kelsey noted that there should be a method to recover costs for review of <br />projects when outside consulti ng fees are incurred. She noted that from her experience <br />working in other communities, that there severa l different methods to recover these costs. <br />However, whenever there is a request for TIF, agreements are in place to recover <br />consulting costs for that review. These s hould not be costs that the taxpayers are <br />responsible for as the HRA is tax suppor ted through the HRA levy. She noted that <br />typically there is internal staff that can do the preliminary review prior to incurring <br />additional fees. With the HRA not having inte rnal staff, they could consider covering <br />fees up to a certain amount to have that initi al review completed by outside consultants. <br />Member Kelsey requested a review of how other communities handle financing review <br />fees. <br /> <br />Member Maschka agreed with Kelsey and also does not want to defer companies from <br />bringing projects and moving ideas forward but also wants to make sure there is <br />accountability of funds. <br /> <br />Member Kelsey does not want additional fees incurred on these exis ting projects until a <br />policy is developed. <br />