Laserfiche WebLink
Agenda 3 <br />HRA Meeting <br />Minutes – Tuesday, January 20, 2015 <br />Page 14 <br />1 <br />successful; and essentially the only additional cost to the HRA and City Council is in granting <br />2 <br />them a little more time. If things did not happen by a date certain, Member Masche suggested <br />3 <br />then the other proposed RFP process could move ahead. <br />4 <br />5 <br />Ms. Kelsey noted that there would be additional funds spend as the HRA attorney reviewed <br />6 <br />things, but so would any project moving forward. <br />7 <br />8 <br />Mr. Bilotta reiterated that the HRA also did not have authority to extend across the fire station <br />9 <br />property owned by the City, whether they were making a viable project or extending <br />10 <br />something else; since the PDA was no longer in effect over that property, and that property <br />11 <br />was no longer under HRA control over which to extend an agreement, without making any <br />12 <br />potential motion subject to the approval of the City Council. <br />13 <br />14 <br />Public Comment <br />15 <br />Rich Schlueter,794 Lovell Avenue <br />16 <br />While admitting he could not speak for the neighborhood, Mr. Schmuder opined that GMHC <br />17 <br />had provided the only development proposal that accomplished what the neighborhood could <br />18 <br />support. Based on his personal research and involvement in neighborhood meetings, as well as <br />19 <br />talking to those in the business, Mr. Schmuder suggested that if it was only a situation of <br />20 <br />giving GMHC an additional few weeks to get a viable project financed, he saw no down side <br />21 <br />to that at all. Mr. Schmuder opined that to terminate GMHC’s proposal, but allowing them to <br />22 <br />reapply seemed to him a waste of time. <br />23 <br />24 <br />Cari Gelle, 777 Lovell Avenue <br />25 <br />Ms. Gelle agreed with the previous speaker; and opined that the other neighbors not in <br />26 <br />attendance tonight would also agree. <br />27 <br />28 <br />Motion: Member Majerus moved, seconded by Member Etten to approve continuation of <br />29 <br />negotiations and recommend to the City Council continuation of negotiations with the <br />30 <br />Greater Minnesota Housing Corporation (GMHC) until a final date of February 13, <br />31 <br />2015, subject to approval by the Roseville City Council at their January 26, 2015 regular <br />32 <br />business meeting; with GMHC and Western Bank (lender) providing final financing <br />33 <br />decisions and satisfactory completion and submission to HRA staff under the terms <br />34 <br />previously outlined (page 3, Section 3, item f) in the expired Preliminary Development <br />35 <br />Agreement by February 13, 2015; and satisfactory completion and submission to HRA <br />36 <br />staff of terms by the GMHC as outlined (page 2, Section 3, items a through e), by <br />37 <br />February 9, 2015; with the understanding that if the City Council subsequently <br />38 <br />terminates negotiations, the HRA also ratifies the termination. <br />39 <br />40 <br />Ayes: 6 <br />41 <br />Nays: 0 <br />42 <br />Motion carried. <br />43 <br />44 <br />Discussion ensued regarding the actual language of the motion in consultation with Ms. <br />45 <br />Ingram; and as agreed upon by consensus and as stated in the final above-referenced motion. <br />46 <br />47 <br />Ms. Ingram addressing timing of documents being provided as background material in meeting <br />48 <br />packets versus arriving under separate cover based on delivery and meeting schedules. <br />49 <br />50 <br />At the request of Member Wall, referencing page 5, Section 12 of the PDA regarding breach of <br />51 <br />contract and waiver of covenants contained in the agreement, Ms. Ingram reiterated that the <br />52 <br />PDA had terminated on June 30, 2015; and any “extension” would be implied as negotiations, <br />53 <br />not an extension of the PDA. <br />54 <br /> <br />