Loading...
EDA 1999 11 10CHANHASSEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 1999 Chairman Boyle called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Boyle, Jim Bohn, Steve Labatt, Nancy Mancino, Mark Senn and Linda Jansen MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Engel STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth and Todd Gerhardt APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Jansen moved, Bohn seconded to approve the Minutes of the Economic Development Authority meeting dated October 21, 19899 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF BILLS: Labatt moved, Mancino seconded to approve the Bills as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. LAKE SUSAN HILLS HOUSING PROJECT. Mark Ruff: Mr. President of the EDA I'm Mark Ruff with Ehlers and Associates. We've served as the financial consultants to the City on this particular development known as the Lake Susan Apartments. Instead of running through the history, unless you think there's a need to, I would just run through what the arrangement is as we understand it for the financing of the affordability of the units. The developer has maintained that they would build this development as a market rate facility without any assistance from the City. Given the goals for the Livable Communities the City has required that affordability be included. The developer has said that that is fine as long as the rate, the return differential or rate differential to the developer is not affected by the affordability. In other words, if we're writing down the rents by $100 a month, or whatever the number is, that they would get that amount equal to them through funding from some public source. The City has requested that the Met Council and the State participate in the funding of that affordability gap as we refer to. So the arrangement that, based on the meetings with MHFA and Met Council and some discussions I have followed since then, is the following. Is the City of Chanhassen would fund the affordability gap to approximately 50% of that affordability gap. The Met Council would share in 25% and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency would share in 25%. The City would fund it's share through tax increment financing. This development, as long as it has 20% of the units affordable at 50% or less of median income would quality for a qualified housing district as a type of tax increment district. The benefit of the qualified housing district is there's no state aid penalty and there's no local contribution required from the City so there's nothing out of pocket unlike other tax increment districts that's being required from the City other than the tax increment. Based on current estimates for taxes, because we are funding 33 out of 162 units, and because these units will be, the market rate units will be fairly high end rents and Economic Development Authority - November 10, 1999 the taxes would be about $1,900 per unit, we would anticipate it would only take less than four years to fund the city's share of the affordability gap. Four years of tax increment. Okay? The remaining portions as I mentioned were coming from Met Council and there's a meeting on Monday with the Met Council's Livable Communities Committee which is really the decision making body for this particular funding source. Just through particularly something called the inclusionary housing fund. It was a special fund set up in the last few years from the legislature through the Met Council. They would be 25% and then the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency would be the remaining 25% through ARIF. It's Affordable Rental Investment Funding I think is what the technical name is. The timing on this has caused a problem because there is a need from the developer standpoint to get in and do a significant amount of grading. The glitch in all of this is Minnesota Housing Finance Agency only awards it's funding through regular cycles. I think it's twice a year that they go through these cycles known as the Super RFP. Super Request for Proposal. That cycle doesn't start until early next year and doesn't award until May of 2000 so we don't know for sure that Minnesota Housing Finance Agency is going to fund this 25%. The Met Council is willing to upfront the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's portion of the funding through a zero interest deferred loan, which is good for three years. And then at the time that the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency comes through in it's funding, that amount will be taken out. There is a competitive process that they, that one must, this project must go through to Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. It's important to note that there is no guarantee but it's as strong a promises as I've heard from public agencies that this funding would be found one way or another for this project. In other words the Met Council has pushed cities to do livable communities. They are the ones who had suggested Minnesota Housing Finance Agency being involved and they are the ones who are providing the loan. And so if it doesn't happen this funding round, it's likely that it would happen in further funding rounds. That's the assurances I get from Metropolitan Council. Okay? If in the worst of all worlds it does not get funded, then it is the city's responsibility under the loan to pay Met Council, the City then must have a separate contract with the developer to see whether or not there's somehow a sharing of that. There's not, the developer has indicated they're not interested in sharing of that at this point in time. One solution that we had talked about to deal with this is, or two solutions really exist. One is you could refinance the Met Council loan and say listen, you promised this money. It's not here. Let's figure out another way of working the loan. The other is to deal with it through some tax, property tax issue. Either extending the tax increment district or there's a special tax class that the developer could apply for and they could pay less taxes. So you wouldn't have to have the tax increment district go so long but they would inevitably do the same thing. Have to pay less taxes through a special tax class. So that's, in terms of uncertainties that have been raised, that's the only uncertainty that I'm aware of. The Met Council funding should be decided within the next few weeks. And as I said, I mentioned there's no chance to move them faster according to their programs than they are already moving. Everything that is being proposed is a grant with the exception of a Minnesota Housing Finance Agency which is a zero percent deferred 30 year loan. What does all this mean? What does the affordability mean? Gap mean. The dollar amount is $124,263 a year. That's the differential when we take the differences between the market rate rents and the current rents. I'm sorry, and the affordable rents. The proposal is to provide that funding up front to the developer. We're just a few minutes into it Mark so. The proposal is to fund the affordability gap up front to the developer. The term would be 30 years. If we do a present value to say over that 30 years, how much is that worth in today's dollars? It's Economic Development Authority - November 10, 1999 a little bit less than a million four. One of the ways that people look at affordable units is how much does that turn into per unit and in this case it's approximately $40,000 per unit. Which may seem like a lot of money for, making a unit affordable in today's world of construction costs and rents. It's typical, it would not be an, it's not an atypical number of other places that I've worked in terms of what it requires in an unfront investment to assure affordability for 30 years. The other issues related, and ! think there were some questions that staff had asked that we would address is, how do we determine what are affordable rents? The arrangement in this case is that the rents would be at least 50% of median income. And the second is that they would be allowed to take Section 8 vouchers or certificates which are set by the federal government, some of those fair market rents. You are in a high cost area so it's actually 110% of fair market rents and that is a number that's set annually by the federal government and increased annually according to the incomes in the metropolitan area. That in a nutshell is a brief introduction in terms of the arrangement. Today the developer has representatives here as well. As ! mentioned there is a meeting on Monday with the Metropolitan Council. This approval is on their consent agenda. However there is a chance that it will be pulled off and questions will be asked of the city and/or the developer. And ! would be happy to answer any other questions you may have regarding either the rents, the amount of subsidy and some of the further steps that need to be taken. The city is not, has initiated calling for a hearing. Todd as ! understand it for a tax increment district, that tax increment district would be set up at the end of December. We would anticipate that there would be a development agreement that would be negotiated obviously before that. The developer has indicated they'd like to get the grading started in early December. Is that my understanding? And then construction on the units would start in the spring of 2000. Mark Senn asked a question that was not picked up on tape. Mark Ruff: Yeah it's actually ! think the second schedule is the one that you'll be using for the tax increment district as ! understand Todd. You're not going to ask for the waivers from the County and the School District so the second schedule would be the schedule for approval of the tax increment district. So ! think, as ! understand it tonight is, there is going to be an agreement that is going to need to be negotiated between the developer and the EDA. There's also agreements that are going to occur between the Met Council and the City. And the purpose tonight is just to seek direction from you on whether you want to proceed with this type of agreement and any suggestions you'd have in negotiating an agreement. Boyle: Before you leave though, Mark do you have some questions you'd like to... Senn: Somebody ask them already? Boyle: We haven't. Not yet. Mancino: We've just started. Senn: In, Mark in relationship to the numbers that were put together, calculating the rent differential, did you build in an increased rent factor and also an increased affordable housing benchmark? Economic Development Authority - November 10, 1999 Mark Ruff: Yes. But we just, we actually just took the first year' s gap and just assumed that that gap would stay the same throughout. Senn: So you assumed a constant increase between rents and between the affordable allocation? Mark Ruff: Right. Senn: Okay. Is there, now my understanding there was also kind of a request here to go ahead and get going on earth work or grading or whatever. Now what impact does that have on us one way or the other? Mark Ruff: ! don't think, as long as they don't pull a building permit it shouldn't affect the value in the tax increment district. ! think the only, there is no impact except for maybe a political one which is someone saying they're starting the project before you have approved the tax increment district. ! think the answer could be that we're doing the tax increment only for the affordability. They're going to build at market rate anyway. Senn: But there's no, you don't feel there's any valuation problems one way or the other? Mark Ruff: Not as long as they don't pull a building permit. Senn: Okay, so the grading permit itself doesn't constitute. Mark Ruff: That's been my experience in other places. Senn: Okay. Mancino: Until the public hearing takes place. Senn: No, but ! mean what they're asking for is effectively permission to go ahead and start early and do the grading and my concern there was effectively that with work starting, is that value going to turn around and affect the base value before we approve the district? Mark Ruff: And Todd, have you had conversations with Ron further on that? Gerhardt: It's always been their opinion. Senn: Okay, so ! mean we have had an opinion in the past that says that's not? Gerhardt: Grading, as long as no foundation permit is drawn... Senn: Because ! mean here it's a real substantial number that was my big concern. A very substantial number. That was it. Economic Development Authority - November 10, 1999 Boyle: As long as we're. Jansen: ! guess the one question ! did have, and you mentioned it as you were going through your points, that if the loan in May doesn't come through, if! heard you correctly, did you say we will have an agreement in place with the Met Council that it would be the city's responsibility then to pick up that other 25% if that doesn't come through? Mark Ruff: If Met Council does not approve it in this funding round, it's a three year loan. So you could go back to Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, or Met Council and say, you know it's a competitive process. Maybe there was an abundance of applications in this particular round and maybe there's another round where there's going to be more money available given how you score up against other projects. At the end of three years the Met Council has said, you know we're committed to this project. ! mean we're obviously, they're the ones who, as ! said, suggested MHFA and have provided this gap financing loan. Maybe we could refinance the loan into some other fashion. Maybe we can find funds but I, according to my regulations they say cannot guarantee that we will give you funding. So it's a, you know ! think they are, ! think they recognize the political ramifications of them failing to fund that last quarter in the interest of cities to fund affordable housing projects but that's not to say that the worst of all worlds couldn't happen. ! think the only, that what we've mentioned is the good news is is that the tax increment district you know if short enough at four years that if you chose to, you could fund it through that without an impact on the cities or EDA's budget by just an additional four years. Not even four years. Probably 2 to 2 lA years of tax increment. That's taking your four years of increment to fund your 50% so the remaining 25% would probably be 2 lA years worth of on a present value basis. Mancino: So a total of 6 iA. Mark Ruff: Yeah, 6 iA, 7. Depending on what the ultimate valuation and how, you know turns out to be on this project. But by then you'll know, ! mean at the end of three years it will be paying property taxes you know for sure. Gerhardt: Know what a rate compression does to you and everything else. Boyle: What was your comment Todd? Gerhardt: Whatever the legislators do to us on rate compression. So that's an unknown that could have an factor. We've seen that in the downtown district so, but the applicant has waived it's right to the 4D option for low income housing. That's a substantially different rate used in calculating taxes versus a regular apartment so in this, from what Mark's run his numbers that it's based on a regular apartment tax rate versus a low income. So your tax capacity rate is, if! remember right, 2.5. Jansen: Yes, compared to 1. Gerhardt: Versus 1. And so we're asking that they waive that right and that they use the 2.5. Economic Development Authority - November 10, 1999 Jansen: And would that be in the agreement then for the duration of the affordable? Gerhardt: Duration of the tax increment district. Is what we would ask in the agreement. Mark Ruff: ! think that's one of the issues here is, you know the duration of the tax increment district could be as short as six years. ! think what we're saying is, the assumption is that the affordability stays for 30 years, right? And so ! think we have to discuss whether or not that 4D would try to, or that agreement would be for the 30 years as well. See what I'm saying? Jansen: Okay. Okay. Mancino: Yeah, ! would like to suggest that it be, you know 30 years and the 4D be 30 years too. I'd also like to suggest in the 30 years, at the end of 30 years, ! mean ! don't think there's anything we can attach at that point to, ! can't look out 30 years and say what's going to happen. If there is affordability. ! would like to make sure that at the end of 30 years, that renters two years prior to that end date, that 30 years, that renters are notified. This may stop the affordability rents. Below market rate, etc. There needs to be some notification to the renters what could happen after 30 years. Gerhardt: Yeah, ! just don't know what the penalty would be if they didn't do it. They've already gotten their money. Mancino: I'm not saying any penalty. Just notifying renters that the rent could go up to market rate rents. Because there will no longer be that. Gerhardt: I'm trying to figure out what the incentive for them to do that or you know just having it in an agreement, if they don't do it. Mancino: We're just asking them to. Can you talk a little bit about, and Mark I'm not sure if this is something for you or Todd, but thank you. You know using an innerfund loan versus bonding for it. The innerfund loan we certainly have the money to do that and we wouldn't have the carrying costs, etc. Gerhardt: Yeah, it was just a discussion item. You can do pay as you go. You can do an inner loan from Historic Trust, utility accounts. ! think you said you used utility accounts in the past. Any surplus money that the city might have and use that as an investment tool towards this. What that would save the city is the difference between what your investment money is versus the 8% or 9% that you would pay as the pay as you go note. Senn: Well plus all the costs associated with issuing. Gerhardt: Yeah, if you issue a bond, you get really three options. An inner loan fund, issuing a bond or pay as you go note. Under the pay as you go note, you will be paying the developer an interest rate on that so you've got really three options and right now one of the suggestions in the, Economic Development Authority - November 10, 1999 in Mark's memo is to use an inner fund mechanism to do that. And what that does is save you a couple percent versus right now our investments are getting us anywhere from 5 to 6, where if you invest it in this project it would save you, you know where they would, the note would probably be 8 or 9 and if you're getting 5 to 6 you're looking at 2% to 3% savings. Senn: There's really no contemplation here really doing a bond though is there on this side of the deal? Oh okay. Gerhardt: It is an option. Senn: Initially it's cost prohibitive. Mark Ruff: The only reason you would do that is if you're doing a bond for something else and yout tacked it along on something. Senn: Yeah, in the pay as you go really doesn't work because all that's doing is turning around and destroying the present value and adding a cost to it. Mark Ruff: Because it's a short term payback. I mean if this was a 15 year payback, maybe you'd think more about lending your own money but because it's such a short term payback, it's probably a wise financial move. Senn: That was kind of my assumption that that's the way we're going. Okay. Gerhardt: Mark, if we enter into where we put the money up front, can we have a deficiency agreement? We've done those in the past where if there is an available increment generated, they would repay us that amount. Mark Ruff: That would need to be negotiated. I mean you can. I mean it's a question of whether, how agreeable they are to that issue. Gerhardt: Brought up a new one. Senn: Well or you could essentially just get the right to file a second... Gerhardt: What that is is a deficiency agreement is when, if we're anticipating $275,000 in increment each year to pay off that inner fund loan, say you only got $270. The developer would then have to be responsible for the additional $5,000 and then because we didn't produce enough increment to make that inner fund payment so, you know that's, we've done those in a couple of prior deals early in the downtown redevelopment stage. Boyle: And did you run short or did you have... ? Gerhardt: No. No. Economic Development Authority - November 10, 1999 Senn: No, because regardless of what happens to the project you only still have to pay the taxes. Gerhardt: But if you had a shortfall during that rate compression or devaluation of the property or something. Mancino: So you guys will work that out. Gerhardt: Yep. Mancino: Thank you. ! don't have any more. Bohn: ! have one... Gerhardt: Incentive is on them to rent it out. That's lost revenue for them so. Labatt: I've got a question for Todd or Don. So this Minnesota Housing fund loan doesn't come through, who's get on the hook then for that 25%? Are you guys comfortable with that? Gerhardt: Well, the way ! understand it, Met Council has taken their obligation for a 3 year period of time so they would put money up. The Minnesota Housing Finance's percentage for a three year period at 0%. And for some reason over that 3 year period then the City, Met Council would have to sit down and figure out who's going to fund that 25%. For the remaining 25%. Senn: The loan fund's a given though. Or ! mean the loan's a given. The only question is whether the loan fund is reimbursed and if it's reimbursed through the general application process for that funding picture or whether there's a problem because that doesn't happen over a 3 year period, right? ! just want to clarify that because you were asking if the loan, ! mean the loan's not something that's in jeopardy one way or the other as to whether we'll get it or not. That's a given. Am ! right on that? Mark Ruff: It's a given for 3 years but at the end of 3 years but at the end of 3 years somebody's going to have to pay for it. Labatt: Right. Right, and if the City's going to end up having to pay for it, are you guys comfortable with being on the hook? Ashworth: Our response is yes. I mean you should realize that it could move from 4 years to 6 years... Mancino: Better than 30 years. Ashworth: And they would not be taking us this far down the road if they did not firmly believe that we were getting the loan. Senn: They, Metropolitan Council... Economic Development Authority - November 10, 1999 Labatt: ...I had questions of the answer. Boyle: That seemed to be the biggest. Linda, are you satisfied with the... ? Jansen: I am. I am and I'm not at the same time. I hesitate on that dollar amount to actually consider it a given from a handshake but realizing again like everyone's saying, we've come a long way from where we were as to what we would be asked to be funded. ! mean even if it went back up again so yes. I'm comfortable. Mancino: And ! think again as has been stated, ! mean the Metropolitan Council is supporting communities and is looking to in many different ways to support communities to live up to their livable community goals. And ! think that if they felt that Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, again they're going to have lots of projects to look at. It's going to be competitive but ! think if they thought that this wasn't a good outstanding project that they'd be the first to tell us. ! mean they don't want to put cities in the position of going ahead with projects like this and then say 3 or 4 years later oh, by the way. We're not going to do it. It would say a lot about the Metropolitan Council's reputation, etc. Jansen: And I guess the only hesitation that I'm left with is the number of projects that they're going to be asked to fund and so then when you get into that competitiveness, how competitive will this project be compared to the other? And that's that unknown. You know what are they going to use as their judgment criteria? My first reaction is to at least want to see what happens in the first round of discussions to make sure that this one is rising to the top. Senn: The first round of discussions? Jansen: As far as with the MHFA in February. That's where ! started from on this was thinking that at least in February we're getting a feel for whether or not this project is going to get the attention that is being expressed and that doesn't seem that far down the line. ! can see where May certainly seems like a long distance out, but if there's initial conversations that are happening in February as all of the competitors are coming in with their projects, and they're having to look at what they have to consider and what the actual funds are that they have to put forther on all of these projects. If we're saying that construction would begin early spring.., rising to the top the way we thought it would. Would that other 25%, it seems like then at least we're still in the position as a city to be able to continue to push for the funding source for that other 25%. We're not going to feel maybe as positively about holding it back if we've already graded the site. There's going to be. Jansen: So you're recommending that they not start grading? Mancino: Well the applicant has a, ! mean the applicant also wants to go ahead and start grading. The Met Council is trying to do a time line to hurry up their process to, ! mean that's why they're meeting with staff on the 15th and saying yes for 3 years. They're trying to customize their process to help out the city so that we can get the project going. Economic Development Authority - November 10, 1999 Boyle: It's a big step. Mancino: That's a big step for the Met Council to take. Go outside of their normal way and to come...to the city and say you know, here's what we're willing to do because we know it's an important project for the city. So again they're kind of going out of their time line. Senn: But I mean the key here is that even if the world falls apart, and everything goes wrong, there's still no risk to the city. No risk to the city because simply if we get saddled with the 25%, all we do is add the amount to the TIF district. You extend it out. Let's pay for it. So I mean essentially it's not an issue of us becoming exposed to anything or anything, it's just simple when we've come from the basis of looking at $5 million on this project down to where we're at, I mean again we're talking about, we're starting to talk about this thing like it's a risk thing and it's not a risk factor. It's just a matter of how it's repaid. Mancino: And that we're willing to commit. Senn: That's right. That's the real issue. Mancino: Which is we said as an EDA we were. Jansen: And I guess you know attitude has changed obviously from the length of the loan but the $40,000 per unit. I'm trying to recall, weren't we looking at $10,000 per unit was the amount for North Bay? Isn't that what we had. Mancino: The loan was between 15 and 20. Jansen: Okay. Mancino: That's in my head because I asked them when this first went around about six months ago to kind of get a comparison and he said to me between 15 and 20 and it was like $700,000 is the amount. Senn: And you're paying more for two reasons. One is higher quality of construction which we've already talked about on this. And secondly being simply time factor. Costs are much higher now than they were when North Bay was built. Gerhardt: Well North Bay was an average of unit of $130,000 and you had half of the units where they were going to buy them at $120 and the other half at $90,000. Senn: It was an average amount over the units. Gerhardt: Right. So that is about $20,000 to $15,000 per unit on those. Jansen: Okay. That's helpful to hear. Economic Development Authority - November 10, 1999 Mancino: Gerhardt: Senn: Boyle: So we're right in there with what we've done before. It's different when you're looking at owner occupied versus rental. Oh yeah, it's far easier. Okay, the next stage to this, next... I'm not sure I'm looking at the right schedule. Gerhardt: Well it's the second page and ! don't know if! told Mark or not but we're trying to speed this along a little quicker. We can make the December 13th meeting for, that's what the Council approved on Monday night would be the TIF plan hearing night would be December 13th. So ! still think we can meet our 30 days. Mancino: December 13th we'll have a public hearing. Okay. Labatt: ...or the regular one? Gerhardt: The second page with the exception of the 13th. So it sounds as if I'm calling Ron tomorrow. Boyle: Is there another meeting before? What's the next? Gerhardt: What we would need to bring EDA back to approve the private redevelopment agreement with the conditions as outlined in Mark's memo. Mancino: And when is that date that the EDA will consider the plan? Gerhardt: It's how quickly Ron can put the agreement together. So I'd like to say next Thursday which is your scheduled meeting but ! don't think he's have it done by this Friday. He's got to work on the TIF plan by Friday. Mancino: Okay, so as soon as he has it done you'll try and get us back together and we will approve an official plan? Gerhardt: Oh you would approve the Private Redevelopment Agreement and then the TIF plan doesn't need to go back to the EDA. It'd just go directly to council. Mark Ruff: It helps to have the EDA approve it but it's Ron call on that. Boyle: If that goes to a council meeting, ! mean obviously... Mark Ruff: But Todd the only issue with the 13th of December is if you didn't want to get a waiver from the County Commissioner. Remember got on his redevelopment and housing districts, you've got to give the County Commissioner 30 days before you publish. And so that's Economic Development Authority - November 10, 1999 why they set up the schedule here is because you couldn't publish and still meet that 30 days for the County Commissioner. You could get a waiver just from your individual county commissioner from this area. You could get a waiver from them and still meet the 13th. Okay? Gerhardt: ! might need to talk to Ursula then because ! doubt ifRon will have this done by Friday. ! talked to him last week and we went through the schedule trying to meet the 13th last Wednesday so he said well I'm going to have to rush to get the plan done. But so ! don't know. Mark Ruff: Is there a meeting still scheduled for the 27th for the council or is there not? Gerhardt: Well the resolution approved by the council was last Monday night was the 13th is when they called for the public hearing. So you might have to ask the county to waive that ifRon doesn't have his plan in by Friday, right? Mark Ruff: Yeah, if the plan's not done by Friday ! have to get the County and the School District to waive as well as the individual county commissioner. For their waiver. Sheldon Wert: ...we'll get back to you. Thank you very much. Mark Ruff: ! guess I'll have to accept that. Very good. Mancino: Mr. Chair, can I just ask that we be given as an EDA and as a council kind of a new schedule whenever that's solidified to let us know what all those dates are? That would be helpful. Thank you. Boyle: Mark, in your absence we already did approval... If not, we are adjourned. Senn: One question. On the administrative section, and the issue with the auditor. When are those responses going to be ready to go back to them then? Ashworth: As of right now ! put another call into Tautges today. He was out. As you saw by my letter, they were scheduled to be out through Monday. And ! will get a response back to you as soon as ! can. ! do not have a response from them. ! did talk to Melanie Tuesday and ! don't know how long it will take us to respond to the questions they raised. Senn: Are we dependent upon Tautges to answer these questions? Ashworth: Well while we are waiting on Tautges we will do as much in-house as we can. But they did fill in the initial reports. They're the one that tabulated all the numbers. ! think it's in your best interest to have, to insure that an auditing firm has submitted audited numbers to them. Now there's some questions as to how they came up with those. Senn: Yeah it makes sense. My only concern is this could become a bottomless pit and very, very expensive proposition with Tautges being in a position where you know the auditor... 50 Economic Development Authority - November 10, 1999 questions now and another 50 and another 50 another 50. ! mean the purpose of having Tautges do it up front was to avoid this. Now it seems like we're there anyway. Ashworth: He will not allow them to spend more than, let's just say $2,000 to $4,000. If it goes over $2,000 to $4,000 we will come back to you and say, here is what they've come up with. We will attempt to do everything in-house. But again ! wanted to put a credibility factor in there and that's the reason ! brought up Tautges' name. Senn: And we'll get the answers at the same time then? Ashworth: Yes. Senn: Alright. That was my concern here. Chairman Boyle adjourned the Economic Development Authority meeting at 7:30 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth Economic Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim