HRA Minutes 03-02-1983C
MINUTES
HOUSING 6 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING /
March 2, 1983 - 7:00 P.M. v
Members Present: Chairman Phil White, Vic Vokaty, Bud Schrupp,
Jack Reeve.
Members Absent: Don Cochran.
The Chairman called the meeting to order. A motion by Reeve, second-
ed by Vokaty and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the
February 9, 1983 meeting.
Chairman White opened discussion noting that the only item of business
for this particular meeting was a work session designed to establish
basic guidelines for development proposals that may become before the
HRA. Administrator Eidem noted that there really were two sets of
guidelines that should be addressed, VIZ, minimum requirements for
data that a developer must assemble before having his proposal re-
viewed by the HRA and basic policy guidelines for eligible and/or
ineligible projects. On a motion by Vokaty with a second by Schrupp
and carried unanimcusly, the following items were established as
minimum requirements that a developer must prepare prior to his sub-
mission of a development plan to the HRA:
A. Professional Site Plan.
B. Legal description of property involved.
C. Professional floor plan.
D. Professional drawing/rendering of structure.
E. Proposed timetable.
F. Financial commitment of the developer.
G. Financial arrangements to date or proposed.
H. Financial justifications or TIF.
I. Estimated valuations as requested by staff.
J. Proposed number of new jobs related to the project, both temporary
and permanent.
- 1 -
U
K. A corporate comprehensive plan.
HRA Minutes - 3/2/83
City Administrator Eidem noted that with respect to basic policy
guidelines,he had recently talked to Jim Holmes of Holmes 6 Graven,
Attorneys, and had been informed that sample guidelines simply did
not exist because of the wide variety of projects that may be proposed
and, guidelines had never been initiated. Eidem noted that were the
guidelines too stringent, they may became self defeating and destroy
the attractiveness of using T.I.P. in Monticello. The rest of the HRA
concurred with that and affirmed their need to be flexible. Several
members commented, however, on the type of project where the HRA
would buy land from one individual at his asking price and then sell
it back to the same individual at a much lower price, thereby creating
capital for the developer. All members agreed that purchases of this
sort, while they may be advantageous to both the developer and the
City, and may be perfectly legitimate, did give the general appear-
ance cf collusion. It was suggested that in a proposal of this
nature, the land be made available to any buyer through a public
offering and that, of course, the seller be aware of such an offer-
ing prior to his selling the land to the HRA. Members felt that
this would demonstrate that their action was in the best interest
of the City, and would make the developer more cautious in proposing
this type of a lanai transaction. A motion by Schrupp, seconded by
Reeve and carried unanimously that any land proposed for sale and
repurchased by the same individual must be placed on a public offer-
ing prior to the resale.
Eidem reported to the HRA that Rick Longley, owner of Lots 1 through
6, Block 1, Commercial Court, had earlier expressed an interest in
selling Lots 1, 2, 5 and 6. Members agreed that it would be a good
site for commercial highway development, would be inconformance with
the zoning ordinance and would be worth investigation. White noted
that perhaps the HRA could retain some type of option on the lard
and then begin to openly market the land. A motion by Reeve, second-
ed by Schrupp and carried unanimously to direct Eidem to begin nego-
tiations with Rick Longley for an option on Lots 1, 2, 5 and 6,
Block 1, Commercial Court, City of Monticello. Status of negotiations
to be reported to the full HRA at the April meeting.
There being no other business, Chairman White adjourned the meeting.
homes Eidem
City Administrator
C
- 2 -