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