HRA MINUTES 06281988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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