HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06-30-08Minutes
Timber Ridge Redevelopment Advisory Committee (“TRRAC”)
June 30, 2008, at 12:00 PM
Attending the meeting were Committee members: Anne Fehlner Gunion
Steve Lindstrom
Alex Potente
Margaret Rogers
Absent: Mike Coughlin
Mark Gordon
Mark Ristow
Staff attending the meeting: Judy Camp
Kelli McDonald
Nina Timm
Stan Zemler
The meeting was called to order at 12:10 PM.
Stan Zemler provided the Committee with an overview of a conversation he had with Gary Gorman of Gorman & Company, Madison, Wisconsin. The conversation focused on some of the pros and
cons of issuing Request for Proposals (RFP) versus Request for Qualifications (RFQ). Based on the conversation, it was the recommendation of Mr. Gorman to issue a RFQ with narrow parameters
and ensure that clear expectations are set forth.
The Committee then discussed the possible pros and cons of a RFQ versus a RFP. The Committee talked about a RFQ allowed the choice of the best team to achieve the goals of the project
rather than debating the merits of the proposed developments. Debating the developments can cause the discussion to focus on things like paint color and unit size and loose track of
the goals. There was discussion about creating a “hybrid” RFQ/RFP and if this was possible.
The discussion then focused on how developers are paid. How could/would this change by issuing a RFQ rather than a RFP? Is it better to pay an hourly fee to a developer or have the
developer paid a percentage of the project cost? What is in the best interest of the project based upon the development goals? Further analysis of the pros and cons of each approach
will need to be reviewed before making a final recommendation.
The role, if any, of Vail Resorts was briefly discussed. The Committee recognizes they are the largest tenant in town and may have some sort of role in the project as master tenants
or equity participants. The role of Vail Resorts would be left to the development team to determine based upon the need of their financial model.
The discussion then turned to the goals presented on today’s agenda.
“Assure long-term affordability or rental units for employees working in Eagle County, Colorado, more than 30 hours a week through a master deed restriction.
Replace a minimum of 800 affordable rental beds on XX acres which the Town will subdivide from the existing 10.08 acre parcel. (The remainder of the property will remain in service
with possible redevelopment at a future date.) Note to TRRAC: more work is needed on the site planning to firm up this goal.
House primarily seasonal workers in the new units; master leasing of units should be considered.
The Town should maintain an ownership interest in the project, which could include a land lease.
The following goals require additional discussion:
Provide rental units which are affordable
Needs definition
Example: XX% (40? 100?) or more of units offered at rates affordable to employees with incomes less than XX% (60?) of area median income.
Utilize hybrid financing vehicles (to be recommended by developer) to leverage the Town’s resources and reduce the debt outstanding on the property.”
Goal # 4 is the first goal that was discussed. The goal is control and not actually ownership. The goal is to have permanent control over the rent and control any future redevelopment
to ensure it continues to meet the needs of the community. Various means were discussed on how to achieve the most affordable rents possible.
Goal # 2 was then discussed. It was broken down into sub-goals:
Replace the existing 800 beds
This is known market demand
What will happen to demand for remaining units?
Phase redevelopment of the remaining property
Most responsive to market demand
There will be concern about what is going to happen on the remaining redevelopment parcel
A broader discussion then began about overall expectations for redevelopment of the property.
At least replace existing housing stock
Maximize density
Phase redevelopment
Provide housing for seasonal workers
Rental housing
Either master leased or Individually leased units
Anticipated lessee impacts concern about affordability
Restrictions
Work Force vs. Affordable?
Assignable to meet regulatory requirements?
Leverage obligations to raise equity for project
There is only one restriction for the property?
For Sale Units allowed?
Creating “partnerships” (i.e., equity, master leases) is outside of the Town’s purview
Successful developer will most likely build and operate the project
Another approach discussed was requesting “bids” on the land to replace the existing 800 beds with the appropriate deed restriction. What is the value of the land in this sort of transaction?
Concern about ensuring timely redevelopment of the 800 beds. If an RFQ is issued there is more control over who “we” work with on the project.
Alex Potente offered County Staff to help provide some financial modeling to better understand what can be financially supported.
The anticipated schedule for the Committee’s work:
Committee recommended RFP presented to Town Council at the August 5, 2008 public hearing.
Issue a RFP or RFQ following the hearing, possibly August 6, 2008.
Receive responses from the development community by September 30, 2008.
Committee review responses and provide Town Council with a recommended developer by October 30, 2008.
Break ground on redevelopment in April, 2010.
The following meeting schedule has been adopted:
Monday, July 14 12:00 to 2:00 PM
Monday, July 28 12:00 to 2:00 PM
Tuesday, August 5 Town Council Work Session and
Public Hearing
The meeting adjourned at 1:50 PM.
3