2015-02-17_HRA_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, February 17, 2015 Page 11 1 2 Member Lee opined that GMHC was just as motivated to get it built. 3 4 At the request of Chair Maschka, Member Lee expressed her interest in getting things done; 5 and favored Option #2 outlined in the staff report. 6 7 Member Elkins agreed that she was in favor of Option #2 to get the project done. 8 9 Member Wall restated his preference, based on staff’s expertise, for a hybrid of Options 1 and 10 3. 11 12 Chair Maschka questioned if Mr. Wall was willing to explore Phases II and III with another 13 developer. 14 15 Member Wall responded that he was willing to do so, as long as GMHC remained in the 16 picture and unless there was any evidence of GMHC’s foot dragging or lack of financing. 17 18 Ms. Kelsey clarified that this may be Options #2 and #3; to which Member Wall concurred. 19 20 Member Majerus spoke in support of the Hybrid option. 21 22 Chair Maschka expressed his concern with the risk; opining that if Phase I fails, which he 23 didn’t anticipate it doing, the City and HRA ended up with a bad piece of property and a bad 24 project. 25 26 Member Majerus noted that if another developer was brought in, it may result in the same 27 situation. 28 29 At the request of Member Elkins, Chair Maschka advised that he wasn’t concerned that the 30 Phase I units wouldn’t sell, but whether there may be other developers out there who could do 31 the entire project. 32 33 Member Etten opined that stretching things out would lengthen the risk; and further opined 34 that the HRA owed the neighborhood to see if a developer can finance all phases, while not 35 eliminating GMHC, but seeking a fresh start. In the worst case scenario, Member Etten noted 36 it would be a three year construction project, but with potential market changes, there was 37 much to consider for the neighborhood, the HRA and the City. 38 39 Member Elkins opined that the appraisal problem would be an obvious issue for any other 40 developer as well. 41 42 Grant Johnson, J. W. Moore, Inc. 43 Mr. Johnson stated that his firm had the cash and was willing to complete the project. 44 45 At the request of Member Lee as to where this developer was when the project originally went 46 out for RFP, Mr. Johnson stated that his firm was not aware of the project. Mr. Johnson 47 advised that, as a forty-year developer with multiple projects in the area, even though none 48 were identical to this project, they had never taken out a bank loan for any project. 49 50 Motion: Member Wall moved, seconded by Member Majerus to direct staff to work with 51 BMHC on Phase I; and specific to Phases II and III, directed staff to come back to the 52 HRA with a process to proceed with, not necessarily exclusive to GMHC. 53