Loading...
RA1980/09/1680 -74 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY September 16, 1980 1:00 P.M. Council Chamber Anaheim City Hall PRESENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins SECRETARY: Linda D. Roberts EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norman J. Priest REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER: Susan Schick Chairman Seymour called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency to order. MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY in the amount of $72,560.21, in accordance with the 1980 -81 Budget, were approved. 161.177: ADPOTION OF A COMPREHENSIVE RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION FINANCING PROGRAM-_ - MARKS-FORAN MORTGAGE BONDS: Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, briefed the Agency on his memorandum dated September 10, 1980, recommending that the Agency adopt the subject program. Bond Counsel was also present if there were any questions. Mr. Priest then confirmed for Mr. Roth that the issue would be coming back to them and the Agency must approve the term of the final sale before any bond issue was settled. He anticipated that they would be coming back some time in November with the conditions of the final sale. Mr. Roth noted that the City was engaging in large bond issues and he was con- cerned over the fact that there was a great deal of competition in the market- place to obtain monies. He wanted to know with government's competition in the bond market, generally what affect it had, if any, on private enterprise trying to provide mortgage money to the private sector. Mr. Priest suggested that Mr. Tom Riley, representing the firm of Bache, Halsey, Stuart, Sheilds, Inc., answer that question when the matter of considering the approval of an agreement with that firm to provide underwriting services for the Marks -Foran Program would be broached later in the meeting. Chairman Seymour then asked if there were any questions at this time on the balance of the actions on the agenda which needed to be taken relative to the implementation of the subject program. Messrs. Roth and Bay and Mrs. Kaywood then posed questions relative to the selection of the Citizens Advisory Committee; Mr. Priest explained the procedure followed in the selection of that Committee and also pointed out that the Com- mittee would be very short -term, perhaps one or one and a half months, and they were not looking at an extended period of time. 80 -75 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1980. 1:00 P.M. Chairman Seymour then explained that he had asked the City Attorney earlier if it were possible if he (Seymour) could have a potential conflict of interest in that in his business, his sales associates did business with a number of the lenders which staff was recommending as participants in the program. Further, once the bonds were issued, since they were probably going to cover an area outside the Redevelopment Project Area, whether there could then be a poten- tial conflict. The City Attorney's response was that the items on today's agenda did not appear to involve any foreseeable conflict. However, Bond Counsel and his office would research the matter, since there may be a future conflict if he sold property involved in the bond issue. With an extreme abundance of caution, he was therefore going to abstain on any of the actions until such time as he received a final opinion by the City Attorney. Mr. Overholt offered Resolution No. ARA80 -30 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated September 10, 1980 from the Executive Director of Community Development. Refer to Resolution Book. RE SOLUTION NO. ARA80 -30: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION FINANCING PROGRAM. A Roll Call Vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Bay NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: AGENCY MEMBERS: Roth and Seymour ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None Chairman Seymour declared Resolution No. ARA80 -30 duly passed and adopted. Relative to the motions, Mr. Priest explained that given all of the constraints, a very short period of time for marketing the issue and the uncertainty of market, it was their proposal to proceed with a negotiated sale of the issue. Mr. Tom Riley of Bache, Halsey, Stuart, Shields, Inc., stated that Mr. Roth was right in that they had been in a very volatile interest rate scenario since October of last year. There had been a rash of issues in the tax - exempt areas as far as housing was concerned, mainly in single - family housing bonds mostly in the new construction and the resale area, but also some in the Marks -Foran Residential Rehabilitation Financing Program which was special to the State of California. As fax as Anaheim was concerned in its other programs, the particu- lar issues of the Marks -Foran Bonds would not affect anything being issued by the City itself as a result of what the proceeds of the bond issue under dis- cussion were going to be used for - -a lower interest rate mortgage to the citizens of Anaheim. The main reason for high interest rates was not because of the oversupply of security in the market, but because of the present economy and what '_ong -term investors were looking to as far as inflation rates. They felt that inflation was not controlled. The program they envisioned regarding the affect on the private sector would be merely to provide money to the normal lenders within the community. All they were doing was providing money to them 2z to 3% below present mortgage rates and as long as they could keep that difference, the program made strong sense within the City. 80 -76 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AG ENCY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1980, 1:00 P.M. Mr. Roth stated that he wanted to be sure he was not adding to the inflation spiral by supporting such concepts. Mr. Bay asked if they would have enough time if they did not like the first round of the negotiated bid to go for a second bid. Mr. Riley answered that they were looking for a sale date somewhere in the area of November 18th. In his estimation, they would have time to reject their pro- posal if they wanted to do so for whatever reason and ask somebody else to come in. Mr. Priest pointed out if in mid - November that were to occur, that to go for a competitive bid would be very difficult, time -wise, if not impossible. If he was looking at a second negotiation, then Mr. Riley was correct. Mr. Overholt then moved the following actions: (1) appointing a Citizens' Advisory Committee for the Marks -Foran Residential Rehabilitation Mortgage Revenue Bond Issue, as recommended as listed in memorandum dated September 10, 1980 from the Executive Director of Community Development; (2) selecting certain lenders to participate in the Marks -Foran Residential Rehabilitation Program, with Anaheim Savings & Loan as lead agency; (3) approving an agreement with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. to act as Feasibility Study Consultant for Marks -Foran Residential Rehabilitation Mortgage Bond Issue; and (4) approving an agreement with Bache, Halsey, Stuart, Shields, Inc., to provide underwriting services for Marks -Foran Residential Rehabilitation Financing Program. Mrs. Kaywood seconded the motion. Messrs. Roth and Seymour abstained. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Mr. Overholt moved to adjourn. Mrs. Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 1 :35 P.M. �..2� LIND D. ROBERTS,`SECR TARY