Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 21 2016 EDA Minutes FINAL Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes March 21, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER President Hedberg called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. Present were Commissioners Hedberg, Chromy, Choudek, Keeney and Sheehan-Kerber. Also present were Executive Director Boyles, Commu- nity & Economic Development Director Rogness, Finance Director Don Uram, and EDAC Chair Lloyd Erbaugh. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION BY CHROMY, SECONDED BY SHEEHAN-KERBER TO APPROVE THE AGENDA, WITH THE ADDITION OF 8B UNDER NEW BUSINESS TO DISCUSS DOWNTOWN PLANS/GRAPHICS; IN ADDI- TION, ALL FUTURE AGENDA’S WILL INCLUDE A MONTHLY 2016 REVENUE/EXPENDITURE REPORT AND EDA COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Chromy, Choudek, Keeney and Sheehan-Kerber. The motion carried. 3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES MOTION BY CHROMY, SECONDED BY SHEEHAN-KERBER TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 29, 2016 MEETING MINUTES. Ayes by Hedberg, Chromy, Choudek, Keeney and Sheehan-Kerber. The motion carried. 4. CONSENT AGENDA No items were on the Consent Agenda 5. REMOVED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS No items were removed from the Consent Agenda 6. PUBLIC HEARING No Public Hearings 7. OLD BUSINESS No items were listed on Old Business 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Private Activity Revenue Bond Policy Rogness: briefly presented a proposed draft policy related to the City’s issuance of revenue bonds for var- ious projects and activities. One copy was distributed that has hand-written markup comments from Briggs and Morgan, a law firm that specializes in municipal bonds. The City currently has no policy. Uram: described a current need for this policy related to a re-funding request for bonds previously issued for the Presbyterian Homes housing project. He said that of the total estimated $26 million for refunding, Prior Lake may be the issuer on $6 million with the balance taken by other cities. Hedberg: made sure that everyone understood that the word “re-fund” does not mean getting money back, but rather, it’s more like the term “refinancing”. Sheehan-Kerber: asked for further clarification on whether the policy uses the same process for new ver- sus re-funding of revenue bonds. 2 Hedberg: asked for clarification on the EDA or the City being the issuer of bonds. For example, could the EDA unilaterally issue its own revenue bonds. Uram: noted that either body can do it and the policy needs to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of each one. The draft policy proposes that either body can issue bonds; if bonds are issued by the EDA, all references to the City Council would apply the same. Sheehan-Kerber: wondered if the EDA would recommend bond issuance to the City Council, and if so, what if the Council does not receive a positive recommendation. Rogness: explained the process that was recently undertaken by the City for the issuance of bonds for the Dominium housing project as approved by the City Council. No recommendation was provided by the EDA. Rogness noted that Dominium decided in early 2016 to pursue bond financing through Minnesota Housing due to a problem they encountered in late 2015 related to a filing fee deadline. Keeney: asked whether the City’s issuance of revenue bonds impacts the total annual $10 million bond financing limit, or does it relate to whether they are bank qualified. Uram: responded that a non-profit applicant would count against the $10 million bond limit while a for-profit applicant would not; for example, Dominium was a for-profit applicant. Hedberg: questioned the proposed fee structure, and asked why they are capped r ather than having a flat percentage with no limit. He thought that staff should check more with other cities, and preferred having no cap based upon this fee being small in relationship to the scope of large project financing costs. Keeney: proposed consideration of an up-front deposit instead of the low non-refundable application fee, but had no suggestion yet on that amount. Sheehan-Kerber: thought an established milestone payment structure instead of an application fee may make more sense in order to cover City costs along the way. Hedberg: discussed the possibility of having the EDA be the issuer of all revenue bonds with the support of the City Council. Uram: reminded the EDA that the key aspect of revenue bond financing is based upon the backi ng and financial strength of the applicant, rather than whether the EDA or City Council acts as issuer. Hedberg: wondered if the EDA could see more examples of how other cities utilize their Council’s and EDA’s in revenue bond financing transactions. MOTION BY CHROMY, SECONDED BY CHOUDEK TO DEFER ACTION AND HAVE STAFF RETURN TO ITS NEXT MEETING WITH MORE INFORMATION THAT ADDRESSES THEIR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS. Ayes by Hedberg, Chromy, Choudek, Keeney and Sheehan-Kerber. The motion carried. 9. OTHER BUSINESS A. Downtown Plan/Graphics Hedberg: proposed an idea whereby the EDA would complete a drawing/picture that would depict the fu- ture downtown once the Highway 13/21 improvement project is completed, expected to be in 2019 . Hed- berg said that this type of visual would help build community consensus for various downtown road net- works, streetscape in the south downtown, redevelopment opportunities, and additional public parking. He supported a walkable downtown with 400-plus more multi-family housing units. “Painting this picture” would help articulate a vision for downtown. Sheehan-Kerber: supports this idea, especially since the City has spent too much time discussing and informing without a better visual of what it means. She said one key aspect is to do it in a way that does not upset people when property is shown as being redeveloped. Chromy: also supports Hedberg’s idea, agreeing that a picture of what downtown may look like in ten years would be very useful. Keeney: questioned the future redevelopment of the transitional town center area, saying that people like that area for residing because they can walk to downtown shops and amenities. He thinks investment in that housing supply may be important for a vital downtown. 3 Choudek: asked for further information on that transitional area, such as the percentage of rental versus owner-occupied properties. A picture may also stimulate debate about preservation versus redevelopment. Choudek further said that a visual vision of downtown should help attract investment by developers. Commissioners: recommended that they review past reports and studies of downtown as a starting point in this process. Sheehan-Kerber: hoped that a consultant would only be needed to complete the drawing or rendering of a future downtown image, especially since the use of consultants has been a criticism of the City. Chromy: wondered about future open houses and/or public hearings . He brought up the increase in the speed limit on TH13, and further recommended that a large area be drawn to encompass the downtown stretching north/south and east/west. MOTION BY CHOUDEK, SECONDED BY CHROMY TO HAVE STAFF RETURN TO THE NEXT MEET- ING WITH COPIES OF EXISTING STUDIES AND REPORTS RELATED TO DOWNTOWN. Ayes by Hedberg, Chromy, Choudek, Keeney and Sheehan -Kerber. The motion carried. 10. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY CHROMY, SECONDED BY SHEEHAN-KERBER TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. With all in favor, the meeting adjourned at 5:38 p.m. ___________________________ Frank Boyles, Executive Director