2015-02-27_HRA_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B Specific to phasing, Mayor Roe noted that talk had revolved around the 18 unit single level proposal; and asked what variation there was from the original 24 unit proposal with different types of housing stock; and how that played out for the banks commitment since there appeared to be two different approached. Ms. Olson noted that GMHC planned to pre-sell the single family units as the townhomes were being built. Mr. McNamara responded that the challenge was that there was considerable difference in site improvements with the alley concept for the first proposal; and GMHC and the City would need to make that decision quickly on which project was intended, noting a considerable amount of the site work and cost structure on Phases II and III were involved in Phase I of the first proposal. At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. McNamara noted that the original project initially contemplated six townhomes and four single-family homes as Phase I, with other housing types for the remaining phases. If the decision was to continue with the original plan, Mr. McNamara noted that involved much more site improvement costs. Mr. McNamara advised that to remain committed, the bank needed to see ongoing progress, and was willing to lay out 2-3 variables of options the bank could support. As stated at the HRA meeting by Community Development Director Bilotta, Mr. McNamara recognized that the City would have similar concerns to those of the bank, with all parties wanting the units to sell. Mr. McNamara advised that at the February 17 HRA meeting, he was envisioning that discussion to concern what was at the crux of drafting a Development Agreement and the Citys requirements for GMHC and clear timelines, which the bank would respond to. Mr. McNamara stated that he anticipated much shorter timeframes for construction, twelve to eighteen months versus three or four years as a guideline. Councilmember Willmus noted that one issue faced and timeline delays involved two different entities owning property for the development: the HRA and City; and asked staff for their input on whether or not one of those entities should take position of the entire parcel, and which entity that should be. City Manager Trudgeon responded that having two entities with two governing boards did complicate things, and that originally the City Council had ceded responsibility of the development to the HRA. However, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) transferring that responsibility had now expired, prompting tonights discussion and his recommendation. Mr. Trudgeon opined that if the properties were combined under one entity, the City Council had a large vested interest in the project and had used the HRA to make it happen. However, since the City controlled the former fire station property, City Manager Trudgeon recommended that it may be more appropriate for the City Council to become the entity in charge, and get control of the land and purchase other parcels from the HRA.