2016.11.09 CC Combined - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Gundlach indicated staff is seeking direction from Council on whether or not to proceed in negotiating with APi on an extension to their current option for the northern two acres of Block G. Should this be the desire of Council, a formal agreement would require Council authorization at a future meeting date. Lotter was pleased that the City had multiple parties interested in this property. He discussed the TIF implications for each of the scenarios. He reported the Pulte option was a good option for the City. Gundlach noted this property was the last developable parcel on the west side of Old Highway 8 and could be the last option to add residential to NBE. Councilmember Jacobsen asked if staff had discussed the option with APi. Gundlach noted she had discussed the option with APi, but did not have a recommendation from the Council or a number to present to them at the time. Mayor Johnson believed $120,000 was a pretty small number for a company like APi to guarantee the lot would still be available in three years, however she did not want them to leave either. Councilmember Bauman agreed she did not want to see APi leave the community. While she understood Pulte would have great success on this property, she believed that APi was committed to the City from the beginning and for this reason the option should be extended. Councilmember Burg was of the opinion APi and Pulte would both be great options for the City. Mayor Johnson believed the City had an opportunity to create another TIF district with the Korean Church, which would lead to growth in the City. She feared that APi could relocate to TCAAP if the City did not extend the option. She understood that APi has been a great company to work with and has constructed a high- quality building. Councilmember Jacobsen discussed the differences between the Pulte and APi option noting one could begin building now while the other was speculative. He did support staff proposing APi pay the difference but was also interested in considering 25 additional townhomes on this parcel. Councilmember Strub struggled with the fact that this property would be locked up for three years if the option were extended to APi. He requested further information on the MWF proposal. Jason __________, Ehlers, discussed the MWF option stating the developer was proposing to construct an affordable apartment complex that would qualify for a reduced tax rate. He anticipated this project would require $350,000 in assistance. He clarified that MWF did not have plans before the City to consider. Mayor Johnson asked if the City should ask APi to pay more than $120,000 for the three-year option. After the three years, the month could be returned to APi if they chose to build on the site, or be forfeited if the last building was not completed. She believed this option would allow APi to show they have a strong commitment to building in the City in three years. Gundlach stated she would approach APi with whatever direction the Council decides. Councilmember Bauman suggested the Council not make any assumptions at this time, but rather have staff speak to APi and what their ideas are for the future and to see if they are receptive to paying the $120,000. She believed APi deserved an opportunity for further conversation.