HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2012-01-23Study Session of the Ithaca Town Board
Monday, January 23,2012 at 4:30 p.m.
215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
Agenda
1. Call to Order
2. Review Draft Agenda for Regular Meeting
3. Town Official's Reports
4. Report from Committees
a. Budget Committee
b. Codes and Ordinances Committee
c. Comprehensive Plan Committee
d. Planning Committee
e. Personnel and Organization Committee
f. Public Works Committee
g. Records Management Advisory Board (RMAB)
\
5. Discussion Item
Records management Grant with the County
Emergency Preparedness Training
Climate Showcase Communities - Ed Marx
6. Consider Consent Agenda Items
a. Approval of Town Board Minutes
b. Town of Ithaca Abstract
7. Review of Correspondence
8. Consider Adjournment
Study Sessionof the Ithaca Town Board
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 4:30 p.m.
215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
MINUTES
Mr. Engman called the meeting to order at 4:31 p.m.
Review Draft Agenda for Regular Meeting –
Mr. Horwitz askedabout the dedication of roads
and the process and the Board members discussed the procedures involved. He also asked about
process for being named “Lead Agency” and Ms. Ritter explained.
Town Official’s Reports
Ms. Ritter reported that the Planning Department would like to see a change in one of our PDZ s
specifically the Chamber of Commerce PDZ. She explained that under the current PDZ even
minor changes that require a building permit, such as new windows, triggers a Planning Board
appearance. She would like make a change to allow routine modifications that meet the same
criteria as everyone else for site plan modifications. She added that she thought there were three
other PDZs that are the same way and those should probably be changed at some point also. The
Board felt that it could come directly to the town board to set public hearing at the February
meeting.
rd
Mr. Engman reported that Donna Fleming, 3 Ward has been appointed as the liaison for the
City to the Town. He also reported that the Montessori School land sale and the Sewer Plant
Land title have been filed with the County.
Mr. Engman also reported that we are at an impasse with one of our unions and we are in
mediation. The key elements are financial ones and we have made very good progress with the
Union representing office workers at Bolton Point.
Report from Committees
th
Budget Committee
– First meeting is scheduled for February 8
Codes and Ordinances Committee
– Mr. Goodman reported that they met last week
and week and finished additional changes to the conservation zone amendments and the Stream
Setback law should be finished at the February meeting. They did not get to setting priorities but
plan to do that in February. He asked that if members have any suggestions, to let him know.
He also suggested that he could start drafting some changes for the minor amendments to
existing laws as part of his Deputy Supervisor duties to move them along such as lot line
changes, a plastic bag ordinance, etc. Mr. Horwitz asked about inducements for affordable
housing and when that was coming noting that many municipalities already have ordinances
regarding it and we could use one of theirs. Discussion followed and Ms. Leary and Mr.
Goodman explained that there are different approaches and we have to decide which approach(s)
we want to use and then we can use other towns’ laws as models. The discussion on the
Study Session 1-23-2012
Page 2 of 8
philosophy of the Town and the approaches is what is time consuming, not the actual law. Mr.
Horwitz asked if it would be months or years and Mr. Goodman thought by September of next
year. Mr. Goodman suggested it be a Study Session discussion item so the Committee would
have some guidance from the board.
Comprehensive Plan Committee
– Mr. Engman reported that they have completed the
second go-around on one of the most important chapters and they are working on the next. The
Committee is thinking about how to reengage the public and other boards and committees for the
next step of reviewing the draft. He stated that they are very close and still have their deadline of
July of this year. Sue Ritter added that they have cancelled the meeting this week and
rescheduled.
Planning Committee
– Mr. DePaolo reported that they met last week and Tom Mank
from ITCTC with his preliminary traffic modeling results for the 3 development scenarios and as
was expected, the preliminary models showed that density does reduces single occupancy
vehicle trips when you compare the same numbers of people but they felt that there were some
issues that needed to be rectified and they asked him to model some of the impacts on
intersections in the City because the map cut off before you got to the Octopus so they asked him
to model up to Meadow Street. Some residents were at the meeting and there was some “robust”
discussion with the levels and taking them out of context. He stated that they tried to impress
upon them that this is a long range full buildout scenario for conceptual planning purposes and it
is not a plan and we don’t have the neighborhood lined up will bulldozers ready so people have
an opportunity to get involved. Sue Ritter noted that the committee has changed to the third
Thursday of the month
Personnel and Organization Committee
– Mr. Goodman reported that they are meeting
tomorrow afternoon and then the first Tuesday of the month. He added that they will be going
over the job classification evaluation system that was started last year.
Public Works Committee
– Mr. Goodman reported that they are meeting tomorrow and
the main agenda item is to go over the conceptual layout of Holochuck and continue work on the
road preservation law.
Records Management Advisory Board (RMAB)
– Has not met yet.
Time Warner Finances –
Mr. DePaolo reported that Time Warner has finally gotten their
financials and he and Mr. Solvig hope to schedule a meeting to review them next week. He
added that he was talking to Steve Thayer with the City of Ithaca who told him that the City
hired an auditing firm to go over the entire franchise finance structure and they uncovered a
sizable amount that was owed to the City and he said these auditors typically don’t take any
money if they don’t find any money so it is not a risk scenario and at some point we might want
to consider that, especially as we approach contract negotiations. Mr. Engman added that a
TCCOG committee that has been formed to form a consortium of 13 municipalities that are
willing to negotiate jointly with TWC rather than separately and this would give a good block of
customers to lend weight to the negotiations. There is a wide range in the number of customers
in the different municipalities, from 500 to 5,000 for a total of 19K subscribers. Ms. Leary
Approved 2-13-2012
Study Session 1-23-2012
Page 3 of 8
reminded the Board about the availability of some digital channels that are not available even
though they should be.
Mr. DePaolo also reported on the adhoc meetings with the City of Ithaca regarding planning for
development on West Hill. With the change in representatives and mayor they are still trying to
synchronize schedules and continue the talks. That being said, he wanted to ask the board about
broadening the topics because conversations are happening about Emerson and other topics and
he, Ms. Hunter and Ms. Ritter wanted to check in about how they felt about them being involved.
He added that the rules would remain the same and if anything substantive was discussed, or
traction gained, they could bring in additional board members. All three felt that the
conversations have been very productive and informative and they would like to continue. Ms.
Hunter added that it has been a sharing of information, not policy and has been a bridge-building
exercise that she would like to continue. The Board felt that was fine and Mr. Engman cautioned
that the public seems to think the Town and City have a lot more say in what can be done at
Emerson. We have to wait for an owner and then work with them. There are also some grant
proposals submitted by the County and TCAD for planning for the property, but again, it
depends on the owner.
Ms. Hunter asked if there were any topics in particular the Board would like them to bring to the
group to gather information or feelings on and also, ideas on how they should respond when they
feel it gets beyond brainstorming and into policy, how should we react. Mr. Engman thought the
Comprehensive Plan is probably covered because they are reaching out to the contiguous but
maybe the banning of parking on Lois Lane which may affect access to Six Mile Creek that may
affect the City. Mr. Engman went on to say that he felt that reporting seems to be working
really well with the three of them reporting at the Study Session and anything immediate can be
conveyed in an email. He also talked about dredging, saying that we are at least an interested
agency if not an involved agency and we need to start paying attention to that. He felt it was
going to be a decades long process and we need to stay engaged in the issue. Then there is the
water issue, and if they decide to rebuild, they will have to buy water from Bolton Point and then
all the changes around the reservoir so that will also be a huge interface. Mr. DePaolo
remembered that the Clinton Street Bridge is supposed to be rebuilt this summer and we should
find out about potential detours they plan on putting in place; he was concerned that it would be
Stone Quarry, which is problematic.
Mr. Goodman thought it might be nice to have a Town/City get together to get to know each
other a bit. Possibly after a Study Session.
Discussion Items
Climate Showcase Communities – Ed Marx, Tompkins County
Mr. Marx gave an overview, reminding the Board that a little over a year ago, the County was
awarded a grant from the NYS Dept. of Environmental Protection Agency to do a project to
document smartgrowth and energy conservation principals in residential development. It wasw
specifically a collaboration with EcoVillage, and the Aurora Dwelling Circle in the City to
Approved 2-13-2012
Study Session 1-23-2012
Page 4 of 8
demonstrate new ways of developing, buildings largely on principles learned largely over the
development of EcoVillage. How to build energy efficient and walkable communities that are
not totally reliant on autos. To demonstrate and learn principles that would allow us to meet
long-term greenhouse emission reduction goals as a community and a nation.
This project will document what is achieved in the third EcoVillage neighborhood (Tree) and it
will also document the infill development, Aurora Dwelling Circle which is also looking at
highly efficient, pedestrian focused and will thirdly try to demonstrate those principles in a more
mainstream development model. EcoVillage is a co-housing model and Aurora Circle is a small
scale infill project; this would be trying to demonstrate that the same principles could be applied
to a larger scale development.
The County identified the County’s property at the old Biggs building for a demonstration
project. These three projects together would give three different examples of more energy
efficient building and planning which is the County’s goal.
The County’s interest came from the Route 96 Corridor Study which was done to look at
alternative development scenarios that could occur in that corridor and what the impacts might
be and the conclusion was that a more focused nodal development would be more positive than a
more dispersed development pattern in that corridor. So this property was identified as a
possible node centered around Cayuga Medical Center specifically. In fact, when the County
moved the Health Department, sold the Biggs Building, it was with the idea that they would be
seeking to develop that area because it was possible to achieve both County and Town goals at
the same time recognizing that the County has to sell that property and part of the capital project
to move the Health Department and sell the property was part of the stated plan.
The proposal in the grant application was that they would do a request for proposals (RFP) that
to seek developers that would develop the property in ways that would meet Town and County
objectives and demonstrate these principles as well as middle income and affordable housing.
(Mr. Marx distributed a draft RFP)
He went over the highlights of the RFP, noting that he was aware there were some issues under
discussion with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and development in this area, and the County is
interested in working with the Town but they would like to move this along with the goal to have
a firm idea of a developer by the end of this year.
Discussion of the RFP followed (Attachment #1)
Proposing 70% of the property would remain open space with development focused on the
remaining. Mr. Marx noted that under current zoning, 35 individual houses would be allowed
and this alternative suggests 75 units on 8 acres as a cluster development which would require
new zoning. In exchange for the increased density, the extra funds generated would be used to
protect other land and/or to build a strong connection to the hospital to promote walkability.
Approved 2-13-2012
Study Session 1-23-2012
Page 5 of 8
Objective on the RFP were discussed (see attachment) which talked about affordability,
walkability, mixture in ownership and rental, common buildings and/or areas as well as
recreation areas.
Mr. Marx noted that the County would like direction from the Board and their involvement in the
process, and more specifically, the RFP. He acknowledged that the Town has discussed
alternative locations during its comprehensive planning, but this project was identified in the
grant so there is a timeline. They are hoping this will be a very positive model that will be used
nationwide.
Ms. Leary asked about the affordability percentages, and Mr. Marx clarified that 80% and below
is a huge need but the target level is 80%. Ms. Leary reiterated that there are subsidies for 80%
and below but nothing for right above who don’t qualify for help and then can’t get a home. She
crunched some numbers and asked if 40% would be affordable to the 80% - 120% of median
group and Mr. Marx agreed.
Mr. DePaolo thought the RFP really stressed pedestrian traffic and asked Mr. Marx where he
envisioned these residents walking. Mr. Marx responded that this is based on the premise that
there would be a commercial center of some sort in the vicinity of the intersection which would
be within a ½ mile radius of the development and it is also within ¼ of a mile of a TCAT bus
stop and a major employer.
Mr. DePaolo went on to talk about the Comprehensive Plan and the discussions of different
locations being more to the south. He didn’t know how presumptuous this plan was to rely on an
older study and the grant project should be investigated to the south County property might lend
itself more to a higher density development such as has been discussed for the Cornell property.
Mr. Marx responded that they have approached Cornell and the ability the County has as owner
gives them the ability to accept a lower value for the property as a tradeoff for the control to
develop a model development. Discussion followed. The general idea of putting this nodal type
of development on the Cornell land and the nursing home type of project on the Biggs land.
Ms Hunter agreed with Rich that if at all possible the concept is better suited in another location.
She also noted that active recreation and recreation facilities should also be thought about, not
just passive recreation such as trails and gardens. Ms. Hunter also asked about whether it would
be a Home Owners Association or a group because the feeling and success is very different
between a community driven and a management driven development.
Ms. Leary noted that this is not supposed to be another EcoVillage but a model to see if more
traditional development can accomplish the goals without too many communal washing
machines and offices and not as shared community space as in EcoVillage. She also liked the
rental units because many times they are preferred by a mixed group of people. Ms. Leary stated
that she did not want to derail this by looking at other locations and asked what the roadblock
was with the Cornell property. Mr. Marx responded that the access road infrastructure costs
would be very high, the layout of the land and the value of the land as Cornell sees it.
Approved 2-13-2012
Study Session 1-23-2012
Page 6 of 8
Mr. Horwitz commented that as a resident of Kendall, the daily living is fine but the issues come
when you have visitors; there is no space for kids-grandkids-large party entertaining and the
residents miss that. Therefore, having a community building would be very attractive.
Mr. Engman noted that he looked at this as would we rather have 35 units take up all the land at
current zoning, or, is it better to have the county project on this and he concludes that it is better
to have the County plan. Both he and Ms. Ritter have talked to other land owners in the area to
encourage other locations, but we have no control and if this is the default, it is still better than
what could be done there under current zoning.
Ms. Hunter added that we are going through a great deal of trouble to plan smart growth and
mixed use communities and it would be wonderful to have this project as part of those and she
would hate to see this project sit right outside of those.
Mr. DePaolo talked about the 2-1 density bonus and asked Ms. Ritter is that was usual. Ms.
Ritter responded that it was and in fact, if this was called a cluster development, the units as
proposed would be allowed in the zoning. Because there are other elements they want to add, it
would probably be a PDZ, but just the unit numbers if called a cluster, would be allowed. Mr.
DePaolo focused on the increase in the land value and wanted to pin Mr. Marx down on what he
said about the difference in the value with and without the increased units to help elsewhere. Mr.
Marx used a fictitious number of $10K per unit, so accept $350K and take the other $350 to help
with improvements such as development rights or a trail improvement. Mr. DePaolo said his
point is that as far as figuring out control and allocation of those potential monies, would the
County have total control and Mr. Marx stated that they would do that with the Town,
absolutely, all expenditures would be done jointly and probably identified in the zoning process
as much as possible. Discussion followed.
Mr. Marx brought the focus back to the process stating that they would like to send this out in
draft form to a few developers, public and the Town to get comments and suggestions from them
in case there are any “poison pills” and then revise and finalize for full release in final form in
late spring with 2 months for responses. With the economy as it is, they have no idea what to
expect.
Mr. Goodman asked if this has been discussed at the legislative level and Mr. Marx assured them
it has and their number one concern is that this be coordinated with the Town.
Emergency Preparedness Training
Mrs. Terwilliger provided the link to the course and 4 Board members opted to take the course as
a group with laptops and projector.
Records management Grant with the County
Mrs. Terwilliger reviewed the revised letter of commitment for the shared services grant noting
that the Town has an escape hatch if needed. The Board approved her signing the commitment
letter.
Approved 2-13-2012
Study Session 1-23-2012
Page 7 of 8
Consider Consent Agenda Items - Items considered separately.
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -027: Town of Ithaca Abstract
WHEREAS, the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town
Board for approval of payment; and
WHEREAS, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board;
now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said
vouchers in total for the amounts indicated.
VOUCHER NOS. 1590 - 1655
General Fund Town wide 49,704.97
General Fund Part Town 5,340.12
Highway Fund Part Town 19,381.18
Water Fund 8,579.52
Sewer Fund 272,290.07
Forest Home Lighting District 62.96
Glenside Lighting District 25.03
Renwick Heights Lighting District 33.30
Eastwood Commons Lighting District 45.61
Clover Lane Lighting District 5.74
Winner's Circle Lighting District 8.62
Burleigh Drive Lighting District 20.17
West Haven Road Lighting District 80.02
Coddington Road Lighting District 46.49
Trust and Agency 15,000.00
TOTAL 370,623.80
MOVED: EricLevine SECONDED: Rich DePaolo
VOTE: Ayes: Levine, DePaolo, Engman, Leary, Goodman, Hunter and Horwitz
Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Goodman noted that the movers, seconders and times for coming out of executive session
and closing the meeting. Mr. Engman said he would get them to Mrs. Terwilliger.
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-028: Approval of Minutes of December 30. 2011
WHEREAS, the draft minutes of the December 30, 2011 meeting of the Town Board
have been submitted for review and approval;
Approved 2-13-2012
Study Session 1-23-2012
Page 8 of 8
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby approves the submitted minutes as ^ ^
the final minutes of the December 30, 2011 of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca.
MOVED: Nahmin Horowitz SECONDED: Bill Goodman
VOTE Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Hunter, Levine, Horwitz and DePaolo
Motion passed unanimously.
Review of Correspondence - None
Ms. Hunter asked who should be considering the draft RFP? Should it go to committee? Should
the Board help the County with talking to others about a land swap? Mr. Engman responded that
everyone seems to prefer another location, but the question is where is the other place?
Discussion followed. It was decided that the Planning Committee would review the draft and the
full Board could discuss it again at the Feb Study Session which would still keep with Mr. Marx'
timeline.
Consider Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 6:40p.m.
Submittd^by
n
Paulette Terwilliger
Approved 2-13-2012
^lnl9o\%
DRAFT
Concept for Biggs Property Development RFP
Tompkins County is seeking developers to purchase or lease and develop a mixed-use
residential community on 25.52 acres of County-owned land in the Town of Ithaca. This
development is part of a United States Environmental Protection Agency Climate
Showcase Communities (CSC) project designed to demonstrate how more energy
efficient, compact, pedestrian-oriented communities can be developed utilizing lessons
learned over 20 years of developing the Bcovillage at Ithaca (see attached - Ecovillage at
Ithaca lessons learned document [to be included]). The community would be integrated
into a larger Development Focus Area including Cayuga Medical Center and other
existing, planned and future residential and commercial development. The development
must provide for future pedestrian connections to fully integrate this community into the
larger community as it develops in the future. The developer will be selected based on a
combination of the price offered for the land, the score on the rating parameters outlined
herein, and the overall quality of the proposal, including the design. The Coimty also
owns an adjacent .92 acre parcel with a 2,250 square foot, 3 bedroom residential building
that may be appropriate for a variety of uses. The County will consider proposals that
include this parcel as well. The County has a recent survey of both parcels available to
respondents.
Current zoning of the property would permit approximately 35 housing units at 30,000
square feet of land area per unit. Tompkins County will submit an application to the
n Town of Ithaca in cooperation with the selected developer to approve a Planned
Development Zone (PDZ) granting a density bonus of 35 additional units for a total of 70
units. The PDZ will be based on a model for a proposed Pedestrian Zone (PZ) floating
zone provision, being developed as part of the CSC project, which is intended to support
development of compact, pedestrian oriented communities. The developer's proposals
will be expected to follow the design principles and specific provisions outlined in the
model PZ zoning document (See attached[to be included]). Any deviation firom those
standards must be identified and why the deviation is deemed necessary explained in the
proposal.
In addition the PDZ would require that all units be clustered at an average density of
approximately 10 units per acre, leaving approximately 70% of the site open space with a
forest buffer along the foil length of the property's boundary along Indian Creek Road
and no impact upon the Federal wetland on the property, (see attached site map for
proposed clustering.)
The proposals will be rated based on the following scoring for achieving the objectives
outlined below. In addition to modeling the PZ concept, these requirements are intended
to demonstrate concepts of incentive and inclusionary zoning, increased density,
clustering, transfer of development rights, and creating a rural/urban edge, as a model that
could be duplicated on other sites.
Employ construction methods, equipment and appliances, and on-site
renewable energy that increases overall building energy efficiency up to 80%
better than current code. There may be an opportunity to collaborate with
Cayuga Medical Center on a proposed district energy system. Points will be
awarded on a sliding scale with 10 points for 50% increase in efficiency from
code up to 25 points for 80%. I n
Employ water saving fixtures and appliances that reduce household water use
by at least 50% fi"om code. (Up to 10 points)
Utilize green infrastructure (such as green roofs, rain barrels, porous pavement
and/or water gardens) that reduce stormwater runoff to be managed by
traditional stormwater management facilties (e.g., detention basins) by at
least 50% fi-om what would be required without these facilities. (Up to 10
points)
Include within the common open space land suitable for a community garden.
(5 points)
Develop 20% of the units so that they would become affordable to households
making up to 80% of median household income. Points will be awarded on a
sliding scale up to 25 points for the full fourteen units. The developer may
elect to provide sufficient designated parcels at no cost to a not for profit
affordable housing developer that will commit to developing the required
affordable units. The proposed developer must be identified in the proposal
including a letter of commitment to develop the affordable units. If tiie
proposal chooses this approach a maximum of 20 points will be awarded on a
sliding scale with 20 points awarded for the full fourteen units.
Develop at least half of the "non-affordable" units so that they would be
affordable to middle income households, i.e., up to 120% of median family
income. (Sliding scale up to 15 points)
Develop at least half of the units as single-family ownership units that could j '
include detached, attached, townhouse or condo units. (Sliding scale up to 10
points)
Include community building(s) with common amenities that may include
offices available for rent by residents, a community room for use by residents,
and short-term residency space available to visitors of residents on a
reservation basis in order to reduce the size of units and keep them affordable.
A small-scale community oriented business such as a coffee shop/cafe might
also be allowed to anchor this aspect of the community and, with appropriate
provision for community use, could substitute for the community room. A
maximum of 10 points will be awarded to proposals that provide all of the
suggested facilities. Partial points will be awarded for proposals that provide
one or more of these facilities. Respondents may propose other common
amenities and up to 2 additional points may be awarded. In the alternative,
the developer may elect to designate a parcel to be sold to another developer
to provide this facility. (Only 5 of the possible 10 points will be awarded.)
Provide passive recreation trails for community use in the undeveloped
wooded portion of the property. (Up to 5 points)
In calculating affordability the norm will be that households should expend no more than
30% of income for housing. For ownership units this includes principal, interest, taxes
and insurance. For rental units this includes rent and utilities. However, for purchase of
housing units that incorporate energy efficiency improvements greater than 50% better
than current code, 40% of income would be deemed acceptable, thus increasing the
affordable cost of energy efficient units. For rental units the calculation will include
estimated utility cost so more efficient units can support higher rents. (A chart showing
median income levels, 80% of median and acceptable PITI and rent and utility
calculations is attached [to be included].)
Residents of the new community will be asked, on a voluntary basis, to fill out pre and
post occupancy logs of energy use in their residences and for transportation, and water
use.
As part of the agreement to allow the increased density Tompkins County will use the
added land value resulting from the increased density to protect land with an equivalent
development potential on the edge of the development focus area and/or provide a
pedestrian connection to the nearest transit stop. *
Minimum Bid
%
The County requires a minimum bid of $ ($ per unit of housing). For
proposals including the additional one acre parcel and dwelling an additional minimum
bid of $ is required.
Payment for Propertv
Tompkins County will defer 50% of the payment for the land until actual sale of the
housing units. Payment will be made quarterly on a pro-rated basis, based on the
proportion of units sold or leased during that quarter. The other 50% of the payment will
occur upon closing. A closing date on the sale or lease of the land is anticipated within
60 days of the approval of the PDZ zoning incorporating the PZ provisions. The 50% of
sales price to be paid based on housing unit sales will be secured by a mortgage with a
balloon payment of the total remaining amount due no later than 10 years from the date
of closing. Although sale of the property is the preferred alternative the County will
consider a proposal for a ground lease.
Submission requirements
All submittals must include the following:
A written description of the proposed development including how it responds to all of the
criteria listed above, including compliance with PZ standards.
A sketch plan of the proposed development on the site including proposed use of all land,
and identifying specific sites for affordable units and middle-incdme units.
Elevation drawings and/or photographs indicating the style of buildings proposed.
Specific energy conserving features and expected reduction in energy demand jfrom
current code.
Water efficiency fixtures and features to be included in the buildings/site and expected
reduction in water use from current code.
* This particular proposal demonstrates development at the edge of a node. Interior development could
capture more value to protect a greater amount of land outside the node.
Proposed financing for the project.
The most recent audited financial statement for the firm.
Experience with projects of a similar scope and scale.
At least three professional references.
Additional financial information may be required prior to accepting the bid.
All proposals must be binding for a minimum of 120 days Jfrom the submission date.
The County reserves the right to reject all proposals.
I ^
I
Stormwater reducing features and expected reduction in stormwater runoff.
Method for assuring that affordable units remain affordable for at least 40 years.
Anticipated sales prices and/or rents of all units.
A plan for management of the undeveloped open space on the property.
All other information required to evaluate the rating parameters outlined above.
Purchase price offered for the property and/or proposed lease terms; County understands
that commitment to this price is subject to approval of PDZ incorporating density bonus
and PZ model zoning provisions. The Coimty will expect the respondent to share equally
with the County any costs of obtaining this approval.
A schedule for development: All proposals must commit to beginning development
within six months of receiving necessary land use approvals and complete at least 50% of
the development, including at least half of the affordable units, within 2 years of initiating
development. Subsequent requests to revise this schedule may be considered ifjustified
based on documented market conditions.
rmm. I — , \Biggs h RFPINDl/^ (^EEK RD^%vX:« O'€'■■ •' ' '• ■ ■ ^ ^. iMtential^i;:::^^ ,'#:,S^ ,-1>»^' •' vv^•'-••■suum