CCP 01-25-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

flow projections and budget assume taxes of$1,500 per unit, which translates into a valuation of $97,600. The City feels strongly that the value will be much closer the County Assessor's initial estimate and is willing to forgo a minimum assessment agreement. The City will try to ensure the value is consistent with the quality of development. The developer will pay the City for park dedication fees which are equal to $1,630 per unit. However, the developer has asked to pay the fees over a 10 year period.The developer has agreed to provide basic maintenance service for the adjacent park(i.e. lawn mowing) once the area is finished. Commissioner Benke questioned if the City is satisfied with Mr. Nolan's assets. Director Fernelius stated the developer has concerns with private financial data being released. The City will propose Ehlers looks at the financial health of the developer. Commissioner Benke questioned if the personal guarantee is tied to the estate. Director Fernelius responded he will look into that. Commissioner Snell suggested the city be listed on the developer's insurance policies. Commissioner Beach questioned if the forgiveness of debt if property sells prior to completion to the contract. Director Fernelius reported the developer can transfer the agreement with the City's consent. A look back provision is a mechanism for re-visiting certain terms under the redevelopment agreement to make sure that the developer is not receiving an unreasonable benefit or windfall. This is especially relevant because the City is both providing cash assistance to the developer and financing the land. Two look back options were reviewed. The developer has requested an exclusive right to develop the adjacent parcel, which is referred to as Block G . In this case, the developer wants the ability to develop on the property for specific period of time. The language in the agreement means that the City cannot sell the property until at least the end of 2013. Director Fernelius stated the city is not obligated to approve any request the developer would request for block G. Commissioner Benke questioned if the developer will be paying for the option. Director Fernelius stated in the past, Transoma had a 5 year option; the first three years, there was no charge; the last two years the y had to pay to extend the options. Because of the current market, Director Fernelius feels this is a small risk. Councilmember Bauman questioned if the developers intended plans for block G are known. Director Fernelius responded currently, there aren't any plans; however the developer would be required to submit as part of the option. Commissioner Smith suggested the developer is attempting to protect their project. Director Fernelius reported midway through 2012 we should have a sense of demand, and what the future plans may be for block G, and the City would have the option to say yes or no to what is built on the site. Director Fernelius noted the site will require higher levels of service requirements, than other parts of the city. The City plans to create a mechanism(either a special service district or master association) for maintenance and capital replacement of certain public enhancements. For example, the center median in Old Highway 8 includes landscaping and irrigation and planting beds at the main entrances into the development along Old Highway 8. Future enhancements will include other median areas and park/common area treatments. Stuart Companies would be responsible for about 5% of these costs, based on percentage of land area. Director Fernelius reported Council will consider the development agreement at their November 23rd meeting, if approved the developer would submit their landuse application for the December 21st Planning Commission meeting. Following the Planning Commission approval,the City Council would consider the application at their January 11, 2011 meeting. A 2012 project completion deadline would be set.