|
REGULAR MEETING December 12, 2016
<br />Councilmember Scott called Mr. Mueller up to the podium.
<br />Mr. Mueller stated, It is not our first preference, but it does work for the City, and there is no
<br />other option on Mr. Matthews' sheet that works for the City, financially.
<br />Councilmember Scott responded, Because of the upfront money from the City?
<br />Mr. Mueller responded, Because of the upfront money from the City, correct.
<br />A brief discussion between Councilmembers Davis and Scott, Mr. Matthews, and Clerk Fowler
<br />ensued over whether the public had access to a letter that Mr. Matthews had submitted listing
<br />four options for the PUD project. Clerk Fowler and Mr. Matthews confirmed for the Council and
<br />public that the letter was accessible through the City Dropbox on the City website.
<br />Councilmember Scott, addressing Mr. Bartels and Mr. Matthews, asked, How many jobs will
<br />this building bring to the City?
<br />Mr. Bartels responded, Our part of it is something in the neighborhood of forty (40) plus or
<br />minus ten (10). So, thirty (30) to fifty (50), but it depends on full- time /part-time. It depends on
<br />how robustly things go.
<br />Mr. Matthews responded, We will probably have somewhere around three (3) to seven (7) full -
<br />time equivalents added for this building for both leasing management and property management.
<br />Councilmember White, addressing Mr. Matthews, stated, I want to make sure, in terms of the
<br />December 12, 2016 letter that we received from the Mayor —the Administration had developed
<br />or offered two (2) options: A and B. Of these options, none of them will work for you, is that
<br />what you're saying? What we have before us, that James just read.
<br />Mr. Matthews responded, You're talking about two (2) different options.
<br />Councilmember White responded, Two (2) different options.
<br />Mr. Matthews explained, One (1) was option D, as in David
<br />Councilmember White interjected, Well, I'm looking at the letter that we have.
<br />Mr. Matthews responded, Right. The first option of their preference was my Option D, from the
<br />five (5) different proposals which was a one - hundred and twenty -seven (127) foot tall building at
<br />the curb, but we can't pay for the garage with only a hundred and forty -seven (147) units. So, the
<br />City offered $1,500,000 to that to buy some land and help pay for the garage, but our deficit was
<br />$4,700,000, so the $1,500,000 didn't get us there. So that option would not work, but then their
<br />second one was my Option B, which was to reduce the height to eleven (11) stories instead of
<br />twelve (12), and that would still give us enough money with the tax abatement to pay for the
<br />garage.
<br />Councilmember White asked, In light of what you have heard, and the height being one of the
<br />major concerns —by reducing by one (1) story, what impact would that have on you financially?
<br />Mr. Matthews responded, It saves us $5,000,000. We spend $5,000,000 less. It costs us twenty -
<br />four (24) apartments, so it's probably costing us $500,000 to $600,000 dollars a year in revenue,
<br />and then it probably saves us $80,000 a year in property taxes that we would not have to pay
<br />because our building would be cheaper.
<br />Councilmember Broden asked if the format of questioning could be modified, as she felt that two
<br />(2) questions per Councilmember did not allow the Council to appropriately question a given
<br />subject matter expert.
<br />Chairperson Gavin Ferlic proposed that if one Councilmember asks a question to a particular
<br />subject matter expert, they can ask an unlimited number of questions to them, and should any
<br />other Councilmember want to ask questions of that same subject matter expert, any number of
<br />Councilmembers may ask questions to them until said Councilmembers are satisfied. Once a
<br />subject matter expert has been totally questioned, the Council can the move on to questioning the
<br />next expert.
<br />
|