My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-0402023 JDA Agenda Packet
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Joint Development Authority (JDA)
>
JDA Agenda Packets
>
2023
>
12-0402023 JDA Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2024 12:07:25 AM
Creation date
2/2/2024 4:16:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
93
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Fabel expressed concern with how the evaluation team determined how many <br /> employees would be located on the site without knowing the nature of the final tenants. Ms. <br /> Mitchell commented the final three proposals rated highly because of their development <br /> experience. She reported the employee numbers were based on past development experience <br /> as well as the proposed square footage of the space being developed. <br /> Commissioner Monson asked if any of the proposals had a timeline for construction. Ms. <br /> Mitchell indicated a broad range was proposed for each of the proposals, but noted this would <br /> hinge on the approval process. She anticipated the site would not be developed until 2025 or <br /> 2026. <br /> Commissioner Monson requested further comment on the clean energy questions that were <br /> asked of the developers. Ms. Mitchell commented on the questions that were asked of <br /> developers, noting they were asked if all electrical was possible. She stated Proposals A and F <br /> said all electric would be feasible. She noted Proposals A, E and F all had good green building <br /> practices. <br /> Commissioner Monson stated Proposal F appeared a little tired to her. She commented on how <br /> the JDA was working to make a unique development and she wanted to see this area of Rice <br /> Creek Commons having walkability. She indicated she supported Proposal A moving forward to <br /> the County Board and appreciated the fact this developer would be coming in all electric. <br /> Commissioner Fabel asked who served as the financial consultant on the evaluation team. Ms. <br /> Mitchell stated Bruce Kimmel from Ehlers served as the financial consultant. <br /> Commissioner Reinhardt stated she appreciated hearing from the city representatives first <br /> regarding this matter. She indicated the County Board had reviewed all six proposals at a closed <br /> meeting. She explained Proposal A hits the mark the most and she supported this proposal <br /> moving forward. <br /> Commissioner Frethem requested staff speak to the tax base increase for the different <br /> proposals. Ms. Mitchell stated the County Assessor's office did a high level assessment based <br /> on the proposals. She recalled Proposals A and F were on the high end and Proposal E was hard <br /> to determine because there was no information for the north portion of the development. <br /> Commissioner Frethem questioned how each of the developments would impact traffic. Ms. <br /> Mitchell noted Public Works did a broad estimate based on the information provided and noted <br /> Proposal E would drive more traffic than the office uses. She stated Proposals A and F would <br /> have similar traffic counts. <br /> Commissioner Frethem indicated she appreciated the return on investment, the all electric <br /> concept and walkability that was incorporated into Proposal A. For this reason, she supported <br /> Proposal A moving forward. <br /> 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.