Laserfiche WebLink
to give us an answer. He did not come in with the equity that we <br /> had asked for , and his partner (managing) stated that they had <br /> relooked at the information and found out that our department was <br /> correct in some of the questions raised, and that after they had <br /> studied this, discovered that it was not economically feasible, <br /> could not be pursued, and that they were terminating at that <br /> point. <br /> Mr. McGann: At what point in time was that? <br /> Mr. McMahon: That would have been October 21. <br /> Mayor Parent: I sat in with the meetings that redevelopment had <br /> with all the developers about a year or two ago, and I think the <br /> allegations that were present with all the work that redevelopment <br /> staff and commissioners had is unfounded. I think those people <br /> who come forward complaining about the problems and making allegations <br /> are completely unfounded, because if that would be the case, the <br /> Marriott would be built when I took office and the commissioners <br /> would not have gone along with me at that time. I think that the <br /> feeling among many council members were that the building should <br /> have been down anyway. Any person who feels that the building <br /> could be helped like the Marriott simply doesn't understand the <br /> arguments that I gave two years ago when I asked for an extension <br /> of time. <br /> Mr. McMahon: Please let me finish one more portion. Shortly, <br /> thereafter we received word either through Mr. Raker or his attorney <br /> that he was now trying to do it in another mechanism by utilizing <br /> an outfit from Chicago Bank. We called in his attorney and told <br /> him that we had a discussion with the managing partner and was <br /> told that the deal was closed and, quite frankly, we don' t want <br /> it reopened at this point because this would be game #3 with <br /> respect to this proposal. Mr. Raker had only one other experience <br /> in developing a building and that proved unsuccessful this summer. <br /> If someone comes in here and wants to try it another way, we have <br /> to have some good reason to accept . We discussed this with his <br /> attorney and stated that he had no equity to base his proposal <br /> on, and that any suggestion that his partners were going to take <br /> or own the building in a year or whatever, was false, and I have <br /> that in writing from them. I got back with his attorney and <br /> informed him that this was the case and he was glad because he <br /> wasn't certain that it would work anyway. I also asked him whether <br /> we should contact Mr. Raker or deal with him, at which he stated <br /> that we could deal with him and there was no need to contact Mr. <br /> Raker directly. <br /> Mayor Parent: If we are going to take another two months to <br /> negotiate with someone else we have to put $80 ,000.00 into the <br /> building and from my perspective I would certainly entertain <br /> anything. I am not sure that the Commission would budge no matter <br /> what. I am not sure that there are five or six council members <br /> who would want to say yes okay, take more time and spend $80 ,000.00. <br /> Mr. Voorde: I am not sure either , but that is not the purpose of <br /> this meeting. The purpose of this meeting is a committee of <br /> inquiry. The allegations that were made, I want to confirm were <br /> not made by anyone on the council members, to my knowledge, or <br /> certainly as a group haven't said that there has been any collusion, <br /> stone-walling or anything, but those claims were made through <br /> correspondence through the Council. In that the nature of the <br /> Redevelopment Commission is going to change, and that we do sit <br />