2015-02-17_HRA_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Agenda 3 HRA Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 20, 2015 Page 12 1 While GMHC started working with Western Bank in September, Ms. Olson noted that bank 2 reviews and appraisals now took longer to complete after the economic downfall, and were 3 obviously much slower than preferred by GMHC. Ms. Olson advised that GMHC would 4 continue to respond to any and all questions of Western Bank, but at the appraisal itself and its 5 timing had been out of everyone elses hands. 6 7 Member Wall reiterated his request for the status of developer responsibilities outlined in the 8 PDA (page 2, Section 3, items a f). 9 10 Ms. Kelsey reviewed each item, deemed not completed as follows, with Ms. Olson responding 11 as applicable. 12 a) Not completely done at this time; 13 b) Preliminary submissions have been received, but no recent submittals for review, so 14 therefore, not complete; 15 c) Related to the time schedule for all phases, not yet submitted; 16 d) Nothing submitted for cost projections; 17 e) The sale process has been submitted, but not the feasibility study; 18 f) Lending is not in place, therefore, not completed. 19 20 Ms. Olson responded that terms and schedules had been provided to Western Bank, and since 21 financials had yet to be finalized, HRA staff had not yet received the documents. 22 23 Member Etten asked for a timeframe if negotiations were terminated with GMHC at this time; 24 and what implications there would be for use of any excess TIF funds. 25 26 Ms. Kelsey advised that excess TIF funds remained available from Districts 10 and 12 to assist 27 any developer, with the City Council having approved amendment of those plans accordingly. 28 Regarding the preliminary plat submitted by GMHC, Ms. Kelsey advised that it had expired at 29 six months, and therefore, GMHC would need to go through that whole process again, with 30 Mr. Bilotta anticipating the process to take approximately two months. 31 32 Chair Maschka asked for staffs perspective on a timeframe for a new RFP or continuing to 33 work with GMHC on their initial RFP. 34 35 Ms. Kelsey clarified that no RFP would be able to officially be processed until the February 9, 36 2015 scheduled joint meeting of the HRA and City Council, depending on the decisions made 37 at that meeting. Ms. Kelsey advised that staff could begin preparing a draft RFP and possibly 38 have it available for that meeting, if the HRA so directed. 39 40 Since the PDA had already expired, Chair Maschka asked what any action of the HRA to 41 extend those terms would mean with that terminated agreement and implications of such an 42 action. 43 44 Ms. Ingram responded that if the HRA decided to continue negotiations with GMHC, it was 45 essentially pretending that the PDA was still alive for another thirty days or whatever 46 timeframe was chosen, which at this point represented a hand shake agreement more than 47 anything else. Ms. Ingram recommended, if that was the direction chosen by the HRA, that it 48 provide that extension in writing for the benefit of both parties, moving that extended 49 agreement to their chosen date, which would then have legal affect. 50 51 With Chair Maschka supporting a drop dead date for any extension, Ms. Kelsey clarified that 52 the City Council would also have to agree to that decision, since they owned the fire station 53 property. 54