2015-06-30 HRA_Special_Meeting_Minutes

Home

HRA Special Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, June 30, 2015 Page 4 1 However, Member Etten clarified that the lack of available information was not necessarily due to staff 2 not making it available, but just the desire to grant a little more time for the developer to achieve their 3 timelines for this great project of benefit to the entire community. As things went beyond their 4 timeframe in the contract, and the City Council became more aware of those lapses, Member Etten 5 opined that this prompted the City Council to seek a confirmed timeline, with things happening in the 6 background that continued to erode the process and create additional new problems. Member Etten 7 suggested part of the learning curve for future projects should be to clearly define decision points with a 8 timeframe, available and open for the HRA, the City Council, staff and the public in general. Member 9 Etten opined staff was 100% supportive of that process moving forward to avoid similar issues with 10 future projects. 11 12 Member Majerus agreed, but questioned how and why the HRA’s Executive Committee, originally 13 established to address those finer details, had not met with the City Council or hadn’t been utilized 14 more in making timely decisions on behalf of the City Council. 15 16 Chair Maschka recognized those concerns of Member Majerus, and concurred that a metric or timeline 17 was definitely needed when doing projects in the future. However, Chair Maschka noted that the 18 majority of the problem was created by things totally out of the control of the HRA or City Council. 19 Chair Maschka concluded that it was a great community process, the coordination between the HRA 20 and City Council needed improvement to address issues (e.g. timeline and missed deadlines); and 21 opined that in the end, a good project was still the result. 22 23 Member Elkins opined that many of the problems were also out of the control of the developer, and 24 based on her experience working with non-profit development projects such as this, it was standard. 25 Member Elkins noted that at least the second bank tried to reassure the City and public of probable 26 financing for the original project. 27 28 Member Lee agreed that it was a great project, but then it had been taken away by the City Council but 29 was not actually moving any faster under their domain that it had been with the HRA. If the HRA 30 considers any land bank projects in the future, Member Lee suggested it be under the authority of the 31 HRA, not that of the City Council. 32 33 Member Etten suggested part of the biggest conflict and complexity of the Dale Street Project involved 34 ownership of property by both the City Council and HRA; while most future projects would not have 35 such a unique and challenging situation to deal with, making land acquisition clearer and under the 36 HRA’s administration. 37 38 Chair Maschka concurred, noting that the communication breakdown had become significant, and he 39 saw the reason for the City Council taking the action it did. However, Chair Maschka agreed that the 40 HRA had been blindsided. 41 42 Member Lee expressed her personal distaste for how and why the project was taken from the HRA. 43 44 Member Wall opined that the vote had been tied 3 to 3 on whether the project should go forward, and if 45 the motion had prevailed to proceed, it would have succeeded as well. Member Wall opined that he 46 found the original project much superior, more interesting and innovative than the revised project. 47 48 Chair Maschka agreed that the HRA, community and neighborhood had lost a good project. 49 50 Member Etten also noted that between the HRA and City Council meetings where the property transfer 51 and administration had occurred, a considerable amount of information had come forward to the City 52 Council that the HRA had not been privy to. Since the HRA is not that large of a group, Member Etten 53 spoke in support of meeting – even in special session – as a body versus having only a smaller 54 executive committee meet to make decisions for the full body. Member Etten opined that this would 55 keep the process moving to meet deadlines, and still allow the full board to make decisions.