2015-02-17_HRA_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Agenda 3 HRA Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 20, 2015 Page 7 1 At the request of Member Wall, Ms. Kelsey clarified that the City Council did not have a 2 separate or affiliated development agreement nor any obligation to consider anything beyond 3 accepting a termination statement scheduled to go before the City Council at their January 26,, 4 2015 meeting. Ms. Ingram concurred, noting that the City would have become an ancillary 5 part of the development agreement if the project proceeded. 6 7 At the request of Member Majerus, Ms. Ingram clarified that, even though the PDA had 8 already terminated, it would be a matter of courtesy and in the best interest of the HRA to 9 provide written notice to that effect to the GMHC. 10 11 Ms. Kelsey noted that, if the HRA and City Council determined to solicit a new RFP that 12 written notice would ensure there was nothing cloudy about the current agreement. 13 14 At the request of Member Etten, Ms. Kelsey confirmed that any new RFP would look similar 15 to the original RFP, and include neighborhood discussions and preferences; and she would 16 suggest that the RFP use the GMHC preliminary plat to provide an example of those 17 preferences in addition to guidelines, particularly in the type of housing stock that no longer 18 included an apartment building. Ms. Kelsey clarified that the preliminary plat was intended 19 simply for guidance. 20 21 At the request of Member Masche, Ms. Kelsey advised that the HRA and/or City owned some 22 of the documents and studies created during the process with the GMHC, whether through 23 participation of paid for, and advised that they would be requesting other documents be 24 returned to the HRAs possession as this PDA is formally terminated with the written notice. 25 26 At the request of Member Wall, Ms. Kelsey advised that the developer had paid approximately 27 $5,000 to-date in an escrow fund, and another $5,000; and that the HRQ had expended 28 approximately $10,000 to-date in legal fees and negotiation of the PDA; with the City Council 29 having little expended to-date other than administrative costs. Ms. Kelsey advised that, since 30 the GMHC project had been viewed as desired development supported by the City Council and 31 HRA, staff administrative costs had not been tracked to-date. 32 33 On page 4 of the PDA, paragraph 7, Member Wall noted the provision that any administrative 34 costs incurred by the HRA would be reimbursed by the developer. Member Wall asked if, by 35 cancelling the PDA, the HRA walked away from any ability to recoup those costs. 36 37 Ms. Kelsey acknowledged that she had tracked close to $10,000 in HRA expenses for attorney 38 fees, as well as the traffic study, both out-of-pocket costs. 39 40 Ms. Ingram noted that those HRA costs were considered administrative costs and defined in 41 the PDA, opining that staff costs should in theory be included in that definition. 42 43 Developer Representatives with Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) 44 15 South Fifth Street, Suite 710; Minneapolis, MN 45 Carolyn Olson, President of Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) 46 Bill Buelow, Director of Construction with GMHC 47 Ms. Eden Spencer, Project Manager with GMHC 48 Ms. Terry Fleming, Sr. Vice President, Western Bank (lender) 49 50 Carolyn Olson, President of GMHC 51 Ms. Olson noted the similarity of this project to a successful one completed in NE 52 Minneapolis; as well as their long-term working relationship with the City of Roseville on 53 other housing initiatives. Ms. Olson noted that the GMHC was proud to have responded to the 54 original RFP and been selected for the project. 55