1987-03-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes March 24, 1987 Brandt paralleled Williams's feeling; Housing Alliance was the major factor for her comfort level with the project, and now is quite disturbed that a group with Housing Alliance's reputation is no longer involved; would like to see the city pursue what rights it has at this time against Housing Alliance for inducing us into this project. Johnson explained he shifted his responsibility to another company which has completed 50 such projects in the State; believes the city has a far stronger package than it had with Housing Alliance; and explained he spent the last year with this project to make sure it really works and has done everything to be sure New Brighton was taken care of. Benke is confident the ownership concern can be addressed before final action is taken on the project; but questioned the impact the shift will have on the city's tax roles, because of the requirement that this remain on the roles as a for-profit project for five years, after which time there will be a reduction in taxes which can be passed on to the tenants. Schmidt asked staff to again provide councilmembers with informa- tion on the fifth-year issue, Twin City Christian's obligation to buy, and the options paralleling the payoff of the bonds. Locke stated he would provide that information, and added the pro- posal for the involvement of Twin City Christian was a key element in the November amendment at which time Miller & Schroeder took a very close detailed look at just how the project would work from a tax increment financing standpoint, keeping in mind the fact that we may end up with a non-profit organization owning the project at some point in the future. Therefore, the structure of the amend- ment and the requirements were designed to specifically protect New Brighton and to make sure we did collect tax increments to cover our costs on this project. Locke continued the amendment council is now looking at is simply changing the date on the pre- viously authorized amendment. Brandt still did not understand how we can enter into a develop- ment agreement and have them change their membership without our having any control; Benke indicated they have proposed these changes be approved as a part of the ultimate implementation of the agreement and are, at this point, asking for a continuation of the agreement to April 15, 1987, to bring the final package back for council's consideration and approval, noting council still will have the opportunity to reject the proposal. Page 8