2013-10-15_HRA_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes –Tuesday, October 15, 2013 Page 13 1 noted that the only timing concern was to be considerate and respectful of the neighborhood; noting that 2 one of their concerns expressed during the CDI process was how long a project may drag out or how 3 long the process would be, suggesting that they may be more supportive of a short-versus long-term 4 development process. 5 6 Member Quam opined that those concerns were probably more specific to the length of time for the 7 construction process itself, not the actual point when discussions and negotiations were in process; and 8 further opined that if another month or two was needed to nail down those details, it was necessary. 9 10 Chair Maschka concurred that it was important to get as many details in place as possible. 11 12 Regarding the financial gap and demolition costs, Member Willmus advised that in his discussion with 13 the neighborhood, one thing they identified in the planning process and a major concern was the density 14 of the project. Member Willmus advised that feedback he’d heard to-date indicated that they would be 15 willing to support a greater level of community subsidy if a lower density could be achieved. 16 Therefore, Member Willmus advised that this was one important aspect he was considering; and how 17 best to maximize City dollars. Member Willmus opined that it did cost money to go through this 18 process to determine what the neighborhood and community desired, and that neighbors recognized 19 that; and if not and the project went on the open market, it would realize even more density. 20 21 Chair Maschka noted that some of those initial costs would achieve a return on investment through 22 future property taxes. 23 24 Member Quam clarified that would not be possible if TIF assistance was given. 25 26 Ms. Kelsey noted that tax generation and return on investment involved the community as a hole; and 27 was not just an HRA decision, but also involved the City Council as a property owner on the project, 28 and their involvement in any ultimate financial package. 29 30 Member Lee opined that all of the proposals included sizable financial gaps, which the HRA had known 31 going into the processand should not be surprising. Therefore, Member Lee noted that there were no 32 certainties at this time. 33 34 Member Quam opinedthat, at this time, the HRA still didn’t know what it was getting into without 35 further information. 36 37 Chair Maschka noted that this portion of the decision-making process was what the concept looked like 38 physically; with the next step of the process considering and fine-tuning what the economics of the 39 proposals looked like. Chair Maschka assured members that those details would become evident as the 40 process proceeded. 41 42 9.Action/Discussion Items 43 44 10.Information Reports and Other Business (Verbal Reports by Staff and Board Members) 45 46 a.Business Retention and Expansion Programming Update 47 Ms. Kelsey provided an update on the upcoming BREP Task Force volunteer training 48 scheduled for November 6, 2013; inviting HRA Board members and anyone in the community 49 to participate as well. Ms. Kelsey advised that 22 Task Force members were currently 50 committed; with training to be held at City Hall from 8:00 to 10:00 a.m. in the Council 51 Chambers. 52 53 Ms. Kelsey advised that the Intern was currently assembling a list of businesses being served, 54 and identifying those to be surveyed. 55