|
comments on, modify how they do business, ask both teams to respond, then make an informed
<br />decision, which could result in neither.
<br />Bob - can we communicate this to the developer (to Randy) and is there time.
<br />Randy - timing is still a concern. In order to get to that step needs to get Bond Counsel, tried to do
<br />this limited in phone conversations.
<br />Gary - emphasized two complete different kinds of projects, SABA has plan in place, Prudential was
<br />quite loose in their proposal. Equity position, may or may not be important, sources of funds with
<br />the approved bond process, interim financing, (recorder)
<br />Does not see significant differences or cost, looking for most experienced team, not making a
<br />recommendation.
<br />RG can appreciate Richard's positions, both responders were aware of COP opportunities, SABA
<br />stated would take 14%, Prudentialleft the door open for different financing opportunities. Progress
<br />payments were suggested, FTA can make progress payments everyday to keep the cost down.
<br />(recorder...) with the information, by presentation or the resulting discussions, are in the position
<br />of controlling the financial of this project, cannot know until we sit down with the team and discuss.
<br />Does not see need to go back out, both have provided a methodology,
<br />~ Mary - two viable options, acknowledges Dick's suggestion, comfortable as a committee that what
<br />the committee decides, (recorder....) is concerned that (...recorder...) other issue, by coming into this
<br />late, in discussion, two different philosophies and two different levels of expertise. (recorder...)
<br />e~rtemal ~pertise on projects and the other has experience locally, internally under Oregon law, tax.,
<br />two different strengths or weaknesses. SABA has done this before, but the other has local
<br />experience.
<br />Mary - revisited first meeting, what if it is neither, concerned that we get a firm handle on what the
<br />financial structure will be. recommends bringing bond counsel on board now, to see what
<br />developers can come up with. is not comfortable making a decision today. Too important for us
<br />not to be stringent, in looking at how we are doing the public's business in this large of a project.
<br />Concerns have to do specifically with timeliness and Hatfield's timeline, can not afford to be
<br />careless.
<br />Richard - the two proposals are two different baseline philosophies. That difference is going to
<br />make a difference in how they will work with us, very important not to select one of the two, and
<br />add another, (recorder..) Real issue is not the use of COP's, how to maximize the assets that we
<br />have, based upon that, we will see a difference in the two teams, not a long process, three weeks.
<br />Bob - SABA, at the end of the process, they are not interested in owning any part of the project,
<br />Prudential would maintain ownership of everything that is not transit's, interested in being the
<br />leasing agent, with COP's this makes it a mute point...the issue that remains is the private portion,
<br />~ SABA
<br />
|