2015-02-27_HRA_Special_Meeting_Minutes

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, February 17, 2015 Page 2 1 development proposal with GMHC continued in fluidity on the part of the developer, as well 2 as their submission of an alternative proposal immediately before he last City Council meeting. 3 Mr. Bilotta noted the difficulty in tracking and matching up discussions, prompting this request 4 of the City Council for the HRA to take the lead by stepping in and attempting to facilitate a 5 quicker resolution to this potential development. Mr. Bilotta advised that this request had been 6 made after consultation with both the HRA and City Attorneys. 7 8 Mr. Bilotta noted that the City Council repeatedly had made it very clear that the HRA process 9 to-date, in particular their work in involving the neighborhood and community at large, had 10 been fantastic and very much appreciated by all parties. Mr. Bilotta noted that this current 11 challenge had been in working with the developer and attempting to keep things moving 12 quickly to avoid further delays and trying to do so while balancing those efforts among two 13 governing bodies. 14 15 In the end, Mr. Bilotta noted that the project would ultimately be funded through the tax 16 increment financing (TIF) dollars under the authority of the City Council, and this requested 17 transfer of responsibilities would hopefully allow the City Council to move the project through 18 earlier by altering some of the mechanisms at play and with all parcels under one body, and by 19 seeking the HRA’s approval of transferring their parcels, it would hopefully make that transfer 20 a quicker process. 21 22 Member Majerus questioned if this was a more of a “chicken and egg” question or if the same 23 thing couldn’t be accomplished in joint meetings of the two bodies. Member Majerus 24 expressed concern that this may set a precedent for how the City Council and HRA work 25 together on projects in the future, or if the bodies could and would continue to work and 26 develop projects together. 27 28 Mr. Bilotta clarified that, from the City Council’s perspective, this action was a one-time 29 situation, and essentially due to timing issues and ongoing delays in getting this project off the 30 ground. Mr. Bilotta noted the HRA’s authority and many past and ongoing successful 31 programs, some of which included the rental inspection program, the Hamline Avenue 32 property, the NEP program to mention only a few. Given the limited time available and 33 crowded agendas of the City Council compared to the detailed analysis and recommendations 34 available by the HRA, Mr. Bilotta opined that he didn’t see the City Council attempting to 35 remove the HRA from its powers. 36 37 Mr. Bilotta reiterated that this development project was still being crafted together and in a 38 limited timeframe, and it was a very unique situation with both bodies owning properties for 39 the project, which was not nor would probably not be similar in future development deals. 40 Since the developer could not meet the provisions laid out in its original intent, from staff’s 41 perspective, Mr. Bilotta opined that this was certainly not a precedent. However, if the HRA 42 had concerns along that line as a body, Mr. Bilotta suggested that be a topic of discussion at 43 the next joint meeting of the City Council and HRA. Mr. Bilotta advised that he did not see 44 this requested action as a major policy decision, but simply as an operational issue to bring this 45 development to the finish line. 46 47 Motion: Member Maschka moved, seconded by Member Etten to authorize HRA staff 48 and the HRA Attorney to explore the correct legal process, begin negotiations with the 49 City, and prepare the required documents necessary to sell the HRA-owned parcels, 2325 50 Dale Street and 675, 667, 661, and 657 Cope Avenue, to the City of Roseville. 51 52 Member Lee questioned who was managing the development while this is going on, as far as 53 continuing to explore the options and stick to a timeline. 54