Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/11/28 - ADMIN - Minutes - Economic Development Authority - Regularllll MI!!WW!MW!NW®MW®lee®NII MI J A MIN M IMI!III!NII!NW!IN!WNW!III!WI!W~®MN!INN!WWW!III!Ill!MW®WWW!WW!~N!WINN!WINNI!NJ»QA]JAAlJANNA»I~MwW!UNI®QQlMW!!!WW!II!WI!WWW!W~ MICROFILMED ~7 MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK November 28, 1988 l. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 7:00 by President Thomas Duffy. 2. Approval of minutes of November 21, 1988 It was moved by Commissioner Meland, seconded by Commissioner Battaglia to approve the minutes of the November 21, 1988 meeting. The motion passed 5-0-1 (Commissioner Strand abstained). 3. Approval of agenda ] J ' It was moved by Commissioner Hanks, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell to approve the agenda. The motion passed 6-0. 4. Public Hearings None. 5. Reports a. On the Avenue The Authority recessed to executive session. Upon its return to Council, the Authority reconvened. Jim Steilen, EDA attorney, said the developer was basically seeking an indication from the EDA that it would be willing to appoint a team of negotiators to work with the redeveloper and its lendor to work out an indemnification that would induce the lendor to make the loan so the project can be built. He said a number of different structures have been discussed and have found out there are· debt limitations that restrict what the City can do. He said it would appear that the EDA commissioners and City Council members are very concerned that the citizens of St. Louis Park not bear the cost by vi rture of taxes if any i ndemnif i cation were to come about. Based on the preliminary analysis done by the consultants it is possible to cover these costs depending upon the magnitude of indemnification, when it occurs, etc. without resorting to taxing citizens. The question to be put to the EDA is would it be will i ng to appoint a team to negotiate an i ndemnif i cation that would have some limitations on it in terms of how it would affect the residents of the City and bring that back to this body for consideration and approval. In the meantime, the EDA and redeveloper would sign an extension of the current stand-still agreement that would keep things constant insofar as their contract is concerned for another 60 days presuming that an indemnifica- -]- ED A meeting Nov. 28 , 19 88 t ion were worked out that was acceptable to both the develo per and the ED A . He felt parts of the redevelopment agreement, at least in term s of the construction schedule , would have to be worked out for the vario us phases. Commissioner Strand felt two poin ts needed to be stressed : What the EDA has explored is the concept of indemnif icatio n to the appoin tm ent of a team and in his mind, that is what would happen should there be a posit iv e vo te . Wit hin general guidelines the team will be giv en, in explo ring the co ncept first and forem ost, is to reiterate that if this concept is going to work at all , it will have to work fr om the standpoin t of existin g revenues and not from the citizens of the City. Commissio ner Hanks asked the develo per if this was the sort of thin g they were looking for. Paul Ravich , attorney fo r the develo per, in addressing Commissio ner Strand 's rem arks presumed existing a nd future revenues from the district - tax in crem ent funds, any that could be available . Commissioner Strand said the projectio n they have been given is w hat the district will produce if the project is completed . Mr. Ravi ch wondered if they were taking in to account that there may be the possibilit y of additional tax increment funding to be made availa ble based on recent Minnesota legislation. He believed any lendor would be lo okin g to the City . The Executive Director felt that was a sig nif icant questio n and was concern ed about what that opened. It was Mr. Steilen's impressio n that the discussio ns have in vo lv ed both the Cit y and ED A. There had been some discussio n if this could be structured in a way that the EDA has the first level of indemnification and the City the second level. Ultimately he has tried to make clear that the City has to be involved in order for the lendor to be persuaded. Counci lmember Friedman felt the attorney for the developer had raised significant questions but that this was what was to be discussed by the negotiating team. Mr. Ravich was in agreement with President Duffy that all envision a three-way discussion between the City, the developer and the lendor. It was moved by Commissioner Friedman, seconded by Commissioner Strand, to form a negotiating team for the purpose of meeting with the developer and lendor on matters of indemnification. Commissioner Mitchell asked if it was the intent of the motion for the President to appoint the negotiating committee. Commissioner Friedman said it was. The motion passed 7-0. -2- ED A m i n u t e s N o v . 2 8 , 19 8 8 MICROFILMED President Duffy said he would like to see the EDA president, executive director and attorney plus one other commissioner serve on the team. Commissioner Hanks suggested he and Commissioner Strand serve on the team so in the event one could not attend the other would be available. 6a. Unfinished business Consideration of time extension with St. Louis Centre Partners - It was moved by Commissioner Hanks, seconded by Commissioner Friedman that the time period be extended to February 1, 1989. The motion passed 7-0. 7. New Business None. 8. Communications and Bills ] None. 9. Adjournment It was moved by Commissioner Mitche 11, seconded by Commissioner Me 1 and to adjorn the meeting at 8:22 p.m. The motion passed 7-0. Attest: J -3-