1980 04 24
e
e
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
APRIL 24, 1980
MINUTES
e
Chairman Bill Gullickson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Present were commissioners, Bohn, Whitehill, Russell and Niemeyer.
Also present was City attorney - Russell Larson, City Manager"""DOn
Ashworth, and representatives of Instant Web~ Frank Beddor and Jules
Smith.
The City Manager noted that this was a special meeting originally
established to review city council action in regards to the Downtown
Redevelopment Plan. City Council action had been scheduled for
April 21st. In light of the memorandum sent by the Manager to HRA
members noting that the City Council would not act on April 21, but
would table action to May 27, the Manager had considered recommending
this meeting be tabled. However, the City Attorney desired to present
information concerning the revised site plan for the HOliday station
and Mr. Beddor had requested to make a presentation before the HRA.
Chairman Gullickson invited Mr. Beddor to make his presentation.
The following correspondence was distributed and areas of concern of
Mr. Beddor shaded in such correspondence. Letters or other
correspondence submitted included the following which are on file at
City Hall and hereby deemed public documents:
e
. . . calculation of Instant Web moving costs, July/1979
. . . architectural costs to Instant Web, dated December 31, 1979
. . . letter from Instant Web dated January 23, regarding Jules
Smith obtaining information concerning financial advantages
of moving Instant Web to Schmieg property
. . . appraisal of Instant Web property, dated Janaury 29, 1980
. Instant Web letter dated February 18, 1980 regarding valuation
of Instant Web building
CPA letter to Instant Web dated March 11, 1980 regarding
financial considerations of relocation
Instant Web letter dated March 18, 1980 regarding hiring of
new employees
BRW memorandum of February 7th regarding relocation policy
recommendations
Instant Web letter dated March 25, 1980 regarding relocation
policies as adopted by the HRA
-
Tax analysis report, Arnie Hed, dated March 10, regarding
potential taxes for Instant Web in various locations
City Manager's letter dated April 2, 1980 regarding additional
factors not considered in Arnie Hed's analysis
e
e
e
,.
e
Instant Web letter of
nece.ssary' for- Instant
increment district
April 11, 1980tgardinq consideration
W~Dto reloca-cewi thin..: the tax
Jules Smith letter to Instant W~n dated March 11, 1980, re:
tax increment district expansionposs'ihilities
architect's letter to Instant Web concerning park one
punlic improvement cost estimates
Ins'tant Web letter to City', dated April 24, 1980, regarding
necessity' of City to answer various questions previously
posed by Instant W~bf but not yet answered
Mr. Beddor requested that the HRA direct him as to !{whoU would be
respons.tble for taking the actions requested by Instant Web as shown
in their letter of April 11, 1~80. The City Manager noted that
neither the Housing and Redevelopment Authority nor the City Council was at a
point in the overall plan process to answer tliespecificquestions
raised by'Mr. Beddor, i.e. tax aBatement formula, amount of moving
costs, specific timetaBle, cash price of building, etc. By the
City Council approving the "redevelopment planlf they would be
authorizing the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to begin nego-
tiations with Instant Web and other property owners within the tax
increment district. During this next phase, these questions, together
with questions regarding reanalyzing the valuations and costs as
presented by BRW, and determining the feasibility of the ring-road
would occur. Specific questions cannot be answered until such time
as the overall financial feasibility of the project is determined.
We are simply stating general policies at this point i.e. the intent
to proceed with nuilding plans as presented by Kraus Anderson/Bloomberg
should they' er:ter into specific development contracts and financiaL guarantees;
tha~ the Houslng and Redevelopment Authority desires existing
buslnesses to stay within the district; that existing
businesses are fairly treated, and that the r.tng-road and other
public improvements can be constructed in terms of cost estimates and
proposed revenues as presented within the BRW reports. The challenge of
the BRA during the next phase, if authorized by the City Council, it
will be to show that specific financial guarantees can be received
from Bloomberg/Kraus Anderson; that the City can develop reasonable
and fair relocation policies and fairly negotiate with existing
business owners; and that the financial feasibility of the project
will continue to reflect a non-burden back to the general public.
The HRA and Mr. Beddor jointly agreed as to various groups and
individuals responsible to answer questions as set forth in his
April 11th letter, i.e. HRA, BRW, City Attorney, etc.
In separate action, the HRA acted to state that the questions raised
by Mr. Beddor in his letter of April 24, 1980 would be the respon-
sibility of the HRA to respond to.
The City Attorney presented the proposed plans for Holiday to construct
a canopy on their property on Great Plains Blvd. and W. 79th st.
Mike Niemeyer moved to recommend to the Planning Commission that the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority found no negative impact to the
HRA redevelopment plan or specifically, the gateway entrance
theme via construction of the canopy. However, this recommendation
does not include consideration of lighting, color, textures, height,
compatibility with major structure, setbacks, etc. It is the belief
e
e
e
-'
e
e
of the HRA that these issues should be reviewed but such is not
within the purview of responsibilities of the liRA. Motion seconded
by Cliff Whitehill, ayes all.
The HRA set the next meeting date of May 20, 1980. Adjournment
10:30 p.m.
9. p
~~
. \..? )9.")} . ~. .
Ie.?"
t-