2015-02-17_HRA_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Agenda 3 HRA Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 20, 2015 Page 6 1 2 Ms. Kelsey clarified that this HRA action would not include city-owned lots (former Fire 3 Station property), and would be in conjunction with and dependent on action of the City 4 Council scheduled at their January 26, 2015 meeting as they discussed termination, as well as 5 the joint meeting of the HRA and City Council scheduled for February 9, 2015 to discuss 6 requests for proposals (RFPs) and next steps. Due to the timing of the scheduled meetings, 7 Ms. Kelsey asked for HRA discussion and their preferred action at tonights meeting. 8 9 Chair Maschka stated his perspective on soliciting RFPs at the earliest possible date following 10 the scheduled joint meeting of the HRA and City Council; and suggested that they seek 11 proposals as close to and similar to that proposed by the GMHC as possible, potentially 12 requiring a refinement of the prior RFP. 13 14 HRA Attorney Martha Ingram, Kennedy and Graven 15 At the request of Chair Maschka, Ms. Ingram advised that there was nothing to prevent the 16 HRA and City Council to seek RFPs if they chose to do so. However, Ms. Ingram cautioned 17 that it would be a mistake to make the RFP absolutely rigid in looking for an identical 18 development proposal as presented by GMHC, even though they had no priority ownership of 19 their proposal per say, but it may get fuzzy in that regard. Therefore, Ms. Ingram suggested 20 that the HRA not get too rigid in soliciting new RFPs. 21 22 Chair Maschka stated that his main concern was the long process went through seeking 23 neighborhood input with the resulting project supported by most everyone; and he didnt want 24 to give any impression that the HRA or City Council was attempting a bait and switch at this 25 point. 26 27 Ms. Ingram advised that the HRA could seek RFPs based on a generic range of housing types 28 and not to exceed a certain number of units, without basically asking another developer to step 29 in and take over where GMHC left off. Under those circumstances, Ms. Ingram stated that she 30 saw no legal problem, but anything beyond that for any other reason may not be a good idea 31 from a public relations and/or policy standpoint. Ms. Ingram opined that, how the HRA and 32 City Council treat a developer influences how others respond to the City; and moving forward 33 at this point should and would require study and deliberation. 34 35 Confirming Chair Maschkas intent, Member Masche summarized the HRAs desire to align 36 any new RFP with the original process resulting in this preferred in creating this development. 37 Member Maschka opined that this included the range of units and how they were arranged on 38 the site and the final overall look or design of the site. Member Masche noted the 39 considerable time and energy spend and extensive discussion-making, as well as the 40 preferences of the neighborhood that needed to be followed in good faith. 41 42 At the request of Member Masche, Ms. Ingram concurred that a new RFP can be similar 43 without being too restrictive. 44 45 Member Wall referenced Attachment A to the staff report entitled, RHRA Preliminary 46 Development Agreement Dale Street Redevelopment, page 2, item 3 (Terms of the 47 Agreement and developer responsibilities outlined in Sections a through f. Member Wall 48 sought clarification as to which terms had been performed and which had not. 49 50 Ms. Ingram noted that, whether or not the items had been completed was mute, as the 51 preliminary development agreement (PDA) had already terminated as of June 30, 2014. Ms. 52 Ingram referenced Item 3 of the PDA, addressing execution of the contract and parameters at 53 the sole discretion of the HRA, providing a great deal of latitude in determining whether 54 moving forward was in its best interest of not. 55