10-02-23 JDA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Fabel expressed concern with how the evaluation team determined how many employees would be located on the site without knowing the nature of the final tenants. Ms. Mitchell commented the final three proposals rated highly because of their development experience. She reported the employee numbers were based on past development experience as well as the proposed square footage of the space being developed. Commissioner Monson asked if any of the proposals had a timeline for construction. Ms. Mitchell indicated a broad range was proposed for each of the proposals, but noted this would hinge on the approval process. She anticipated the site would not be developed until 2025 or 2026. Commissioner Monson requested further comment on the clean energy questions that were asked of the developers. Ms. Mitchell commented on the questions that were asked of developers, noting they were asked if all electrical was possible. She stated Proposals A and F said all electric would be feasible. She noted Proposals A, E and F all had good green building practices. Commissioner Monson stated Proposal F appeared a little tired to her. She commented on how the JDA was working to make a unique development and she wanted to see this area of Rice Creek Commons having walkability. She indicated she supported Proposal A moving forward to the County Board and appreciated the fact this developer would be coming in all electric. Commissioner Fabel asked who served as the financial consultant on the evaluation team. Ms. Mitchell stated Bruce Kimmel from Ehlers served as the financial consultant. Commissioner Reinhardt stated she appreciated hearing from the city representatives first regarding this matter. She indicated the County Board had reviewed all six proposals at a closed meeting. She explained Proposal A hits the mark the most and she supported this proposal moving forward. Commissioner Frethem requested staff speak to the tax base increase for the different proposals. Ms. Mitchell stated the County Assessor’s office did a high level assessment based on the proposals. She recalled Proposals A and F were on the high end and Proposal E was hard to determine because there was no information for the north portion of the development. Commissioner Frethem questioned how each of the developments would impact traffic. Ms. Mitchell noted Public Works did a broad estimate based on the information provided and noted Proposal E would drive more traffic than the office uses. She stated Proposals A and F would have similar traffic counts. Commissioner Frethem indicated she appreciated the return on investment, the all electric concept and walkability that was incorporated into Proposal A. For this reason, she supported Proposal A moving forward.