2015_0126_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Provide GHMC additional time to get the following item delivered (until 31 February 9, 2015) 32 (Section 3a. text) Submit to the Authority a design proposal to be approved o 33 by the Authority showing the location, size, and nature of the proposed 34 Development, including floor layouts, renderings, elevations, and other 35 graphic or written explanations of the Development. The design proposal 36 shall be accompanied by a proposed schedule for the starting and 37 completion of all phases of Development. 38 39 (Section 3b. text) Submit an overall cost estimate for the design and o 40 construction of the Development. 41 42 (Section 3c. text) Submit a time schedule for all phases of the Development. o 43 44 (Section 3d. text) Undertake and obtain such other preliminary economic o 45 feasibility studies, income and expense projections, and such other economic 46 information as the Developer may desire to further confirm the economic 47 feasibility and soundness of the Development. 48 49 (Section 3e. text) Submit to the Authority the Developer's financing plan o 50 showing that the proposed Development is financially feasible, and, to the 51 extent Developer seeks public financial assistance in any form (including 52 reduced land cost, waiver of fees, and tax increment financing), evidence 53 that such assistance is reasonably necessary to make the Development 54 financially feasible. 55 56 If the City Council decides to terminate negotiation with GMHC, the HRA’s action 57 will also terminate negotiations between the HRA and GHMC. 58 PO OLICYBJECTIVE 59 Not applicable. 60 BI UDGET MPLICATIONS 61 If the City Council terminates any further negotiations with GMHC, it is anticipated that there 62 will be additional staff time needed to solicit a new developer for the site. It is anticipated the 63 City Council and RHRA would then schedule a meeting to outline next steps which will further 64 outline any budget implications for the City and HRA. There is currently a joint City Council 65 and RHRA meeting scheduled for February 9. 66 SR TAFF ECOMMENDATION 67 Staff has met with the City Attorney to discuss the appropriate alternatives given the RHRA 68 action. Based on the City Attorney’s input, if the City Council does not wish for the project to 69 proceed, the City Council should, by motion, revoke the City’s obligations under the MOU 70 between the City and RHRA on the basis that the MOU has expired and the City does not wish 71 to convey the subject property to the RHRA at this time and direct the City Manager and Mayor 72 to deliver correspondence to the RHRA memorializing that the City’s obligations under the 73 MOU cease to exist. Alternatively, if there is a desire to wait to see if GMHC can meet the 74 RHRA’s deadlines, the City Council can table discussion and any potential action on the topic 75 Page 2 of 3