CC PACKET 08231988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 companies- had excellent proposals. In the end, it almost came down to 2 a flip of a coin. The fact that Lang-Nelson had wanted to phase the 3 development at that time may have been the deciding factor for choosing • 4 the Gaughan Company. The H.R.A. was impressed with this new proposal 5 and thankful for the persistence of Lang-Nelson in working on this 6 project. 7 H.R.A. Attorney Bill Soth reminded those present that the agreement 8 calls for closing on the bonds before the City- begins land acquisition. 9 Paul Brewer agreed that this was the case. 10 Also in the audience was Gary Holmes, of CSM Corporation, who asked to it be heard. He stated that for the past several weeks they had been 12 working hard to put a proposal together for this project and were 13 present that evening to offer to: 14 *sign a redevelopment agreement; 15 *provide a non-contingent Letter of Credit to guarantee the 16 project. 17 He stated that his track record includes developing over 4,000 units in 18 the last 2-1/2 years and managing over 11 ,000 units in 17 states. He 19 stated that the most difficult part of a project is the financing and 20 he stated that he had the financing in hand and was ready to do the 21 project. 22 Staff and the Attorney reported that they had been attempting to find 23 developers for the project ever since the Gaughan Companies had failed 24 to perform. Meetings with CSM had taken place but there had been no 25 response from CSM until the previous week - and financial information 26 had not been received until the previous day. Since there had not been 27 time to review their proposal adequately in one day, the staff reported 28 that .although CSM seemed to be a reputable company and their proposal 29 seemed attractive, they, as staff, were not prepared to give any 30 recommendation, either positive or negative, regarding the hastily 31 submitted CSM proposal. Although the CSM representative stated that 32 they would agree to all the terms of the redevelopment agreement, there 33 were a number of issues - in that agreement which still needed to be 34 negotiated before signing, so actual approval by the H.R.A. would take -35 additional time. 36 The H.R.A. expressed wonder where all these developers had been several 37 years ago. They thanked Mr. Holmes and Mr. Carland for their proposal. 38 They expressed regret that a project was not . available for both 39 developers. 40 Motion by Makowske, seconded by Enrooth to approve execution of the 41 Redevelopment Contract with Lang-Nelson by the H.R.A. off icers, 'approval 42 of the acceptance of the non-refundable check and personal guarantees 43 and the $360,000 Letter of Credit. 44 Motion carried unanimously. 2 •