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