Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />Discussion ensued regarding the various phases and their marketing; potential of other <br />2 <br />developers in various phases; and the responsibility being asked of staff and their oversight on <br />3 <br />the investment of various phases and applicable timetables. <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />At the request of Member Lee, Mr. Johnson advised that he could not commit his firm at this <br />7 <br />point if Phase I was removed from the overall development, as to their continued interest in the <br />8 <br />remainder of the property, since the most value was inPhase I. Mr. Johnson opined that their <br />9 <br />firm would probably not be as much interested in the remaining parcels. <br />10 <br />11 <br />Specific to HRA concerns about recapturing funds on Phase I, Ms. Kelsey advised that those <br />12 <br />details would need to be clearly outlined in the Developer’s Agreement. <br />13 <br />14 <br />Member Etten spoke against the motion, opining that there were too many questions <br />15 <br />outstanding and an increased risk in undertaking Phase I and eliminating options for Phases II <br />16 <br />and III. Therefore, Member Etten advised that he couldnot support the motion. <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />Member Majerus questioned if this created further delay. <br />28 <br />29 <br />Mr. Bilotta opined that, on the front end there would be some delay as someone new was <br />30 <br />brought on board, which may exclude the 2015 construction season. <br />31 <br />32 <br />Member Lee noted that they may still phase out to be fiscally responsible. <br />33 <br />34 <br />Member Elkins questioned the funds GMHC has already put into the project. <br />35 <br />36 <br />Member Lee recognized that concern, opining that this was one of the reasons developers were <br />37 <br />hesitant to work with the City of Roseville. <br />38 <br />39 <br />Chair Maschka noted that GMHC didn’t have the equity so they couldn’t do the project. Chair <br />40 <br />Maschka opined that he was convinced that there was someone out there who could do the <br />41 <br />project and do it now, depending on how the City solicited that interest. Chair Maschka noted <br />42 <br />that interest rates were good for bidding right now. <br />43 <br />44 <br />Member Etten opined that this was different than the Sherman Apartment situation and <br />45 <br />concerns about how the City works with developers and subsequently takes action. Member <br />46 <br />Etten opined that this situation had spun out of control in many ways; and this action would <br />47 <br />take into consideration the neighborhood concerns as well as risk to the City, and financial <br />48 <br />standing of the HRA and City. <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />52 <br />53 <br />54 <br />Member Majerussuggested tabling action on this until the return of the full body. <br /> <br />