Reading the RDA minutes from Dec. is educational. Very educational.
Woodbury plans to make several upgrades to the Springhill Suites. It sounds like it may be better than I originally envisioned. Still not an Embassy Suites like the one in Hillsboro, OR or a Doubletree. But better than a standard Springhill Suites.
I hope at the meeting this week some RDA members confront the project manager for Woodbury (I do know his name but am not willing to write it here), about what certainly appears to be conflicting information. He told P & Z Woodbury owned three lots, as he mentioned the amount of interest in the other two lots already for restaurants. However, he told RDA Woodbury only owned the lot for the hotel. Those meetings were held within days of each other, not even a week. I believe everyone is owed the truth and an explanation if plans/ownership changed.
Woodbury got told what IF RDA could invest in this project. I feel like there is a power struggle, given what the overall costs and profits will be. Rene M. explained again Woodbury approached them essentially out-of-the blue for help and they had Kelsch, the Bonneville Hotel and perhaps one more unnamed project planned for 2016. Regardless, it wasn't like RDA sent out RFPs, Woodbury decided to build another hotel based on profits the Residence Inn earned in 2015.
IF RDA offered Woodbury $3.25 million and Woodbury wants $3.50 million. At one point in those Dec. negotations, the project manager said Woodbury wants it done right and if needed they would wait a year. RDA said they had other projects too and they couldn't commit to more money if Woodbury delayed starting as they couldn't pay anything past 2017. They offered to draw up a MOA for the $3.25 million. Woodbury basically said they would take everything they could get. Um, I wonder if he really understands what he said?
Woodbury's response was we want this done right plus only claiming they only had one lot, not three. Then they said building costs had gone up. Wow, that's a surprise (not). I wonder what they would be if they started in a year on a higher end brand?

Somewhere in that mix Woodbury mentioned three key things, IMO:
1. Woodbury said they couldn't get bank financing for some costs. Wow, maybe Woodbury is building *Cheaper Brands* because they don't have the cash flow. I don't know that to be true, I was simply surprised they would have a bank finance this project- it's not a "W" Hotel.
2. Woodbury said the RDA was "not the only one who should be approached for funds." IDK if that was a veiled reference to McNeil Development or some other companies.
3. After a county commissioner went through the numbers again, stating very clearly there was a finite amount of money RDA controlled along with RDA was already committed to other projects, Woodbury said maybe they could maybe waive their Developer's Fee.
I don't know the numbers or other *incentives* Woodbury received for completing the five story Residence Inn. I do know extra incentives were included, potentially from the private sector. As long as that hotel stood uncompleted, I believe several other private businesses suffered. So I wonder if Woodbury wanted to see how far the *goodwill* of the RDA, private business and others would go to have another Woodbury hotel? Not Woodbury or any other developer will get the assistance they received on the Residence Inn.
So we'll see what happens this week. The RDA may opt to not develop some of the west side greenbelt for a while, or Woodbury may make their numbers work, or Woodbury might wait a year when everything costs more.
I wonder if there is another project which hasn't been made public yet? Or, does Idaho law currently allow RDA to be involved with a specific area for a finite number of years. Any thoughts? I know the Legislature has redevelopment, standardization of some terms and how RDA can or can't help so Idaho law is consistent throughout the entire state.
I'll write about Kelsch and the Bonneville separately as there are some awesome ideas for KELSCH.