|
but I know for sure in Hilo. We have a general contracting affiliate as well. So I can go on and
<br /> on, but we are very, you know, substantial company with a lot of experience in Hawaii.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Now, what would the funding source be for development of Pdlamanui?
<br /> COLON: Funding for real estate projects always involves a mix of what we call dead equity, so
<br /> we've already put in a very, very extensive amount of equity. We would—in order to fund the
<br /> improvements or the additional improvements, you would go your traditional sources that could
<br /> be lending that could be through local banks. Because of our balance sheet and the balance sheet
<br /> of our partner, we would probably, you know, we might look for, to get some financing from
<br /> mainland as well. We could bring in equity partners, so we might even look for, so we might
<br /> look for equity investors. It's somewhat of a circular answer there because it'll all, you know,
<br /> each project tends to be, you know, specific project by project.
<br /> VITOUSEK: So, basically it would be, you know, once we can secure, you know, if we can
<br /> secure the requested relief, at that point you would be seeking out the financing to complete it?
<br /> COLON: Internal or external, I think most of you know our partner is Charles Schwab, so it's,
<br /> you can imagine, that's, that's not, you know, that he's, you know, he's obviously substantial.
<br /> So, you know, again, we are, as a developer, we, we approach various capital sources to, that
<br /> tend to be, you know, project by project depending on the nature of project.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Okay, thanks. And then, so, moving on and, you know, anybody who has the
<br /> answers, feel free to answer the questions. The first thing I point out is for the most part what we
<br /> are looking at is not a reduction in public benefit,but a changing of the schedule for the public
<br /> benefit. The only exception being the park, the amendment to Condition S, I believe it was.
<br /> And, to me, I would be much more comfortable if we were not reducing the scope of the park
<br /> and reducing the overall public benefit, but instead doing a similar change in schedule where
<br /> after 251 units, that will trigger the phase one of the park, and then if we could set another trigger
<br /> down the road for the development of the remaining portion of the park, and then the turning
<br /> over of that remaining portion of the park to the county, already developed. That would make
<br /> me much more comfortable, having been in a situation where with the developer that I work for
<br /> the county didn't want to accept an uncompleted park even though it was in the ordinance, and
<br /> took us three years to convince the county to accept an undeveloped park extension piece. So, to
<br /> me, the public benefit is in completing the park and turning that over to the county. Now, if you
<br /> need relief in the form of scheduling saying we can push that second phase down the road and
<br /> get some more revenue from later phases before we can complete that, is that an option?
<br /> HARRIS: This is Roger Harris. Can you hear me?
<br /> VITOUSEK: Yes.
<br /> CARR SMITH: Yes.
<br /> HARRIS: Thanks, Member Vitousek. We, that is an option; however, we are not in favor of
<br /> that option. And the park started out years ago as a I 0-acre park that we would improve, and
<br /> 26
<br /> DRAFT
<br />
|