2013-10-15_HRA_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes –Tuesday, October 15, 2013 Page 12 1 Ms. Kelsey noted that financial modeling was done based on facts before the proposal seeking land 2 acquisition for $1 and the resultingfinancial gap, with projecting the cost of the property. Ms. Kelsey 3 opined that the proposals equaled out if viewed from that perspective and the amount of subsidy being 4 requested from the City. 5 6 Member Quam noted that the first proposal did not take demolition costs into consideration, which 7 would increase the financial gap; opining that when looking at the finances, all costs needed to be 8 considered and the bottom line of how much of the bill the City would be required to pick up. 9 10 Chair Maschka noted that that detail was one of the next steps in the process. 11 12 Chair Maschka thanked the audience for their attendance; and reiterated the upcoming meeting schedule 13 in this continuing process, as more information and fine tuning was done. 14 15 Member Quam reiterated the need to take costs into account if a proposal was chosen for the benefit of 16 the overall community. 17 18 Ms. Kelsey noted that any proposal or final decision-making also had to wait on City Council action, as 19 they were the other property owning entity; thus the joint meeting coming up next Monday. 20 21 At the request of Member Quam, Ms. Kelsey reviewed the immediate next steps in developing a matrix 22 for comparison purposes, available by the joint meeting of the HRA and City Council for discussion 23 purposes; and subsequent work on financial assessments and other components between then and the 24 November 19, 2013 HRA meeting. When a developer was finally chosen, Ms. Kelsey noted that there 25 would be ongoing negotiations by both parties as the project went out to bid, was further finessed, and 26 other areas of consideration. Ms. Kelsey noted that the first proposal included no increases in developer 27 fees, even if less dense and owner-occupied; with any offset captured from sales coming back to the 28 community. Ms. Kelsey noted that any and all of the details would be addressed and negotiated through 29 development of a Development Agreement. 30 31 Member Quam expressed her current discomfort with those details, and asked when a proposal would 32 actually be chosen. 33 34 Member Lee noted that, even when a proposal was accepted, there would remain significant details to 35 be negotiated and determined. 36 37 Member Quam recognized that situation; however, she questioned whether the GMHC project was 38 feasible with that gap, or the changes that the CommonBond project would not get their tax credits. 39 40 Ms. Kelsey noted that it was difficult to have this discussion before a comparison matrix was developed 41 following tonight’s presentations and subsequent notes taken during the Q & A portion of the 42 presentations. However, based on her experience in the development realm, Ms. Kelsey advised that all 43 the questions are never answered on the front side, but worked out through the process and ongoing 44 until the actual closing. 45 46 Also based on her experience in the development field, Member Quam advised that she did fully 47 understand the process; however, she noted that she still had some questions that she needed answered 48 related to the financial aspects, or more information to make a better guess. Member Quam advised that 49 she did not want to engage a developer if she felt the project would not come to fruition. 50 51 Ms. Kelsey clarified that, the upcoming joint meeting of the HRA and City Council would probably 52 result in additional questions and information needed; with staff meeting with the developers in the 53 interim and before the November 19, 2013 HRA meeting with responses. Ms. Kelsey noted that at that 54 meeting, it may be evident that a decision and recommendation for a preferred developer could be 55 made, or it may be evident that more information was needed before reaching that point. Ms. Kelsey