2015-03-31_HRA_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 indicated one type of product over another, there was still time to change that product with 2 City approval. 3 4 Member Wall took issue with staff’s opinion that these three options outlined in the staff report 5 are more policy than practice issues, since he found them very specific. Member Wall stated 6 that he was uncomfortable moving forward with any of the three options; and questioned if 7 staff had read the market analysis and whether they had spokenwith the authors of that 8 analysis. 9 10 Ms. Kelsey clarified that staff had spoken with GMHC staff, but not the brokers themselves. 11 12 Member Wall opined that staff had the most information of anyone present at the bench 13 tonight, and asked staff for which option they would choose. 14 15 Mr. Bilotta stated that he would be willing to structure a deal to get Phase I done, and would 16 consider whether to break Phases II and II out to seek other opportunities, opining that this did 17 not need to be a one developer project. Mr. Bilotta noted that such a scenario would allow 18 time for GMHC to pre-sell Phase I, while it would take longer than getting all phases done. 19 From his perspective, Mr. Bilotta opined that this may fast track pre-sales and within six 20 months, there would be a clear idea whether other developers are interested or not. Mr. Bilotta 21 stated that Phases II and III worried him much more than Phase I, particularly the Dale Street 22 concept, which needed to be taken on faith versus a better comfort level if Phases IIand III 23 were working together. 24 25 Chair Maschka noted a similar concept at Applewood Pointe, with Ms. Kelsey advising that 26 only one part of the project turned out. Chair Maschka advised that, if he was developing the 27 project, he would want ownership of Phase I if he was doing Phases II and III. 28 29 Ms. Kelsey concurred, noting that Phase I helped finance Phases II and III, and questioned 30 how that would happen if it remained an unknown if any other proposal was coming forward, 31 should another developer need the financing from Phase II to accomplish Phases II and III. 32 With the cost of infrastructure construction, and need to locate them in the alley behind the 33 development, Ms. Kelsey noted that this was causing a considerable amount of expense for this 34 project, in addition to it being a denser project requiring water retention on site. 35 36 If the project was split into two pieces, Mr. Bilotta noted that stormwater management would 37 be provided on Phase I to serve the later phases, another complexity of the Developer’s 38 Agreement, with financial assisted requested by GMHC for that aspect of the project. Mr. 39 Bilotta noted another “cream of the crop” issue for profit on the front end was transfer of the 40 property at no price, and property paid for in Phase I to provide upfront income and then move 41 into other phases with a cross-subsidy. Mr. Bilotta advised that this was a model that staff had 42 not spent a great deal of time looking at yet, but could be another option for consideration. 43 44 Member Wall asked staff if they took issue with anything stated in the February 6, 2015 45 memorandum from GMHC. 46 47 Mr. Bilotta stated that he took no issue with anything as with any information provided by the 48 developer or their brokers based on their interest in the project, which should be taken for what 49 it’sworth from their personal perspective. However, Mr. Bilotta stated that he didn’t see 50 anything being a major concern. 51 52 Member Wall suggested, therefore, that the HRA could rely on the GMHC and their bias from 53 a developer’s point of view. 54