Laserfiche WebLink
5 <br /> • 1 *the latter have asked for a special meeting- with the H.R.A. <br /> 2 July 6th, where they would be willing to commit $20 ,000.00 in non- <br /> 3 refundable cash for a 60 day option on the project; and would sign a <br /> 4 Redevelopers Agreement and put up a Letter of Credit with the only <br /> 5 condition relating to financing; <br /> 6 *staff had come back suggesting a $40,000.00 with perhaps <br /> 7 $20 ,000 for the first 30 days and another $20,000.00 if they need <br /> 8 more time. <br /> 9 *they were in agreement that the developers were very sincere <br /> 10 in their desire to do the project; <br /> 11 *there was a possibility that if their deal with Norwest went <br /> 12 through, they would be able to finance the project through conven- <br /> 13 tional mortgages and might not use the Housing Revenue Bonds at all ; <br /> 14 *because of the time restrictions on the bonds, the H.R.A. is <br /> 15 almost forced to go with and stay with one developer at this point; <br /> 16 *Gaughan Company doesn't appear to be a viable candidate <br /> 17 anymore; <br /> 18 *the July 6th meeting with Lang/Nelson would be for the purpose <br /> 19 of showing the H.R.A. the project they were proposing at this time; <br /> • 20 delivering a signed Redevelopment Agreement and a Letter of Credit <br /> 21 and putting up non-refundable commitment money the amount of which <br /> 22 staff is still negotiating. <br /> 23 Mr. Childs presented the "worst case scenario" where at the end of <br /> 24 the 60 days Lang/Nelson would tell the H.R.A. they can't sell the <br /> 25 H.R.A. bonds and their whole project goes away. the H.R.A. would <br /> 26 then keep all the $450 , 000 .00 in the bank now, none of which Arkell <br /> 27 could claim if that happened. This amount of money would be enough <br /> 28 for the H.R.A. to provide some other subsidy for a different kind of <br /> 29 project and developer. <br /> 30 Even in the face of possible Arkell bankruptcy, the general consensus <br /> 31 was that the H.R.A. should not pay the developer anything at this <br /> 32 time. <br /> 33 When Commissioner Ranallo repeated all the discouraging things he was <br /> 34 hearing about the problems with developing rental property, Mr. Soth <br /> 35 told him the one thing he perceived was different about this project <br /> 36 was the fact that all the developers staff had talked to were in <br /> 37 agreement that the site St. Anthony had to offer was "choice" because <br /> 38 of its location, making it more probable than other projects they <br /> 39 knew of. <br /> 40 H.R.A. Action <br /> • <br />