EDC 11-16-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

UTES Brighton Economic Development Commission Not Approved dar Meeting —September 21, 2010 a.m. Members/Liaisons Present: Gina Bauman, Mark Nelson, Dennis Flahave, Marie Hansen, Bob Benke, Bob Smith, Mike Murlowski , Terri Snell and D.L. Beach Members/Liaisons Absent: Ruben Vasquez Staff Present: Grant Fernelius, Community Development Director; Katie Bruno, Office Assistant. Call to Order Commissioner Nelson called the meeting to order. Approval of Minutes Minutes from the June 15, 2010 and August 17, 2010 meetings were approved. Report from Council Liaison Councilmember Bauman reported council approved a term sheet with Stuart Companies, although she was not in favor of some of the terms; and hopes to see some positive changes in the agreement. It was decided to let Director Femelius explain the term sheet. Northwest Quadrant Report Developer Discussion Director of Community Development Femelius reported the City has entered into a non binding agreement with Stuart Companies which spells our parameters for an agreement. Block H is the proposed location of the apartment complex; a preliminary site plan was included in the EDC packet. Two lots were platted when Rottlund proposed development. The lots will need to be re -platted into one site. A four story design was submitted, the same architect that designed the API building is the architect for this project. The developer is proposing a minimum 120 units, up to 130 units; about 32 units per acre. There has been a lot of negotiation with the land price; originally Stuart offered a price of $500,000. The City responded with a price of 1,250,000. Stuart cannot pay $1,250,000; the City thought to keep the land price higher, Stuart could pay $200,000 at closing and defer the additional funds. There are future discussions planned to address concerns the council has expressed with the land price issue. In order to protect the City's interest that the project maintains a certain valuation and associated tax revenue, the developer has agreed to enter into a Minimum Assessment Agreement. There has been a significant amount of discussion about the valuation of the project. The City has taken the position that this issue will ultimately be decided by the County Assessor and that the developer needs to understand that a higher valuation is likely. The City is confident that the value will be higher than the developer's estimate, but has demanded an assessment agreement for at least the first few years of the project. The term sheet states that the minimum valuation ($97,600 per unit) would apply from 2013 to 2017, with a 3% inflation rate. Again, the value will be determined by the County based on comparable properties, but mostly protects the City against a move by the developer to petition the value to a lesser amount. The developer will pay the City for park dedication fees which are equal to $1,630 per unit. The developer has asked to pay the fees over a 10 year period. The specific terms need to be negotiated, as well as whether the fees can be secured. A look back provision is a mechanism that allows the City to recapture any unintended benefit the developer may receive. This is especially relevant because the City is providing cash assistance to the developer and is financing the land. Two look back options were explained The first option states at completion of the construction of the building, the redeveloper shall submit a complete list of costs for the project in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals, if the