Laserfiche WebLink
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY <br />EDINA CITY COUNCIL <br />MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING <br />OCTOBER 7, 1985 <br />Answering rollcall were Commissioners Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner and <br />Courtney. <br />MINUTES of September 9, 1985 were approved as submitted by motion of Commissioner <br />Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Turner. <br />Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney <br />Motion carried. <br />AWARD OF BIDS-EDINBOROUGH UTILITIES ACTION MOVED TO COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM V.A. <br />P- <br />CI) Ln I: m <br />Attorney Tom Erickson explained that a Joint Powers Agreement between the <br />H.R.A. and the City has been drafted so that the H.R.A. and the City can award <br />as one bid two separate items of work for the Edinborough utilities,'one for <br />the H.R.A. public work and one for the City public work. He recommended that <br />agenda item I be moved down to the City Council agenda item V.A. for award of <br />bids and that a joint meeting be convened at that point. Motion of Commissioner <br />Bredesen was seconded by Commissioner Turner to take action on agenda item I <br />in a joint meeting with the Council when it considers agenda item V.A. <br />Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney <br />Motion carried. <br />BILTMORE MOTEL REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL APPROVED; REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AUTHORIZED. <br />Mr. Rosland recalled that the Council heard the Biltmore rezoning request on <br />August 19, 1985 and at that time the proponent of the project, Frank Dunbar, <br />also discussed a request for $1,000,000 of tax increment financing assistance <br />from the H.R.A. <br />the members of the HRA/Council expressed reservations concerning the financial <br />assistance. Subsequently, staff and Mr. Dunbar have met on several occasions <br />to discuss revisions to the financing proposal. <br />requests that the City issue Housing Revenue Bonds to finance the project. <br />Mr. Dunbar recalled that on August 19, 1985 they had proposed a concept for <br />senior housing under a redevelopment proposal for the Biltmore Motel site. <br />that time they presented an analysis of the market as well as a financial structure <br />to address that market. <br />financial structure still trying to maintain a very strong presense to the <br />market that could be penetrated with the project. <br />ment project to meet the goals and objectives of the redevelopment district. <br />Mr. Dunbar said they have held the program intact from the standpoint of pre- <br />sentation to the market after considerable discussion with Health Planning and <br />Management Resources, Inc. and Health Central Corporation. The acceptable market <br />is perceived as the senior citizen 55 years and older that is looking to give <br />up their single family home and moving to a facility such as is proposed. <br />restructured financial proposal has been modified to a Housing-Revenue Bond <br />which would allow the developer to take advantage of the tax-exempt status. <br />Mr. Dunbar explained that 1) they are not requesting the City to do a redevelop- <br />ment project in a manner dissimilar to what they have previously done, and' <br />2) the-tax increment that is generated from the redevelopment project would be <br />available to meet the goals and objectives of the redevelopment district as a <br />whole.-However, it is requested that off-site improvements that would be <br />proposed by the project and under the district objectives would be covered by <br />the bond. <br />of the units be provided to low and moderate households. This would be moni- <br />tored on an annual basis to be sure that goal is met. Mr. Dunbar stated they <br />are requesting authorization by concept approval to proceed to a redevelopment <br />contract together with an inducement resolution for sale of the bonds. <br />actions would be subject to final review and approval by the Council. Commissioner <br />Turner questioned 1) why the market is directed at age 55 and older when units <br />in the City's PSR zoning is specifically designed for occupancy by persons <br />62 years of age or over, 2) why the increment district would pay for off-site <br />improvements instead of the project, 3) what the cost is to the Federal and <br />State governments of this type of financing, and 4) whether approval of the <br />project must be given by the MHFA. Planner Larsen responded that there is a <br />precedent for the increment district paying for public improvements as was <br />done for the South Haven senior project. <br />could be worked out in the redevelopment contract and that regarding the cost <br />to Federal/State governments the interest earned on the bonds is not taxable <br />to the lender. With respect to MHFA approval, Mr. Hughes said they could be <br />involved as to income limits on persons occupying the units, but that this <br />type of bond issue would not be subject to their ceiling. <br />ioner Bredesen, <br />Although the City granted preliminary approval of the rezoning, <br />Therestructuring of the proposal <br />At <br />Since that time they have re-analyzed primarily the <br />., It is still seen as a redevelop- <br />The <br />He pointed out that this type of financing does require that 20% <br />Both <br />Mr. Dunbar said the age issue <br />In response to Commiss- <br />Mr. Dunbar said approximately 30 units would be provided for