Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />NOVEMBER 21, 2001 <br />Roycraft felt the project would look like just another apartment building. <br />Roycraft stated that he would like to see a new concept proposed. <br />Fahey felt the concept drawing submitted by Rutzick and Johnson looked good <br />and was an attractive building. Rutzick pointed out that the more you do to <br />dress up a building, but more expensive it is to construct. Johnson pointed out <br />that the first floor retail will give a different look to the project. Fahey also <br />pointed out that the City has architectural guidelines for this area that will have <br />to be complied with. <br />Fahey asked if the RFP indicates that the City is looking for someone to <br />develop and own the project. The City Administrator indicated that that was <br />correct, but pointed out that the RFP includes a statement that the City is <br />considering undertaking the project itself. The Administrator again noted that <br />if the City does the project, the rent structure should be $150 to $200 less <br />because of the City would not take a development fee and has less costs for <br />issuance of bonds. At the end of a 30-year bond issue, the City would own the <br />building. <br />Fahey again noted that if the City undertakes this project it would be viewed as <br />a service function for Little Canada residents as well as the parents of Little <br />Canada residents. <br />Johnson indicated that a private developer would have less architectural costs <br />than would the City. He also disputed the City's thinking that there would be a <br />large development fee built into the project costs if the project is done <br />privately. Johnson pointed out that Rutzick is a major landowner, and noted <br />that if Rutzick is not the developer, the City will have to acquire his property. <br />Johnson also questioned the City's previous discussions related to the <br />development of townhomes on a portion of the site. Johnson stressed the need <br />for more density than townhome development would provide in order to make <br />the project work. Johnson also indicated that there return comes from retaining <br />ownership of the project and the benefits of depreciation. <br />Scalze asked how long Johnson held the Lakeside Apartments. Rutzick replied <br />that Brutger Companies had some financial problems and through bankruptcy <br />proceedings was forced to sell the Lakeside. Johnson indicated that they <br />currently own 14,000 units. <br />Scalze pointed out problems that have occurred at other apartment complexes <br />once initial bonds were paid off and new financing required a certain <br />percentage of units to go to low income. <br />Rutzick pointed out the tax implications of the project being City-owned. The <br />City Administrator indicated that if the City owned the project, there would be <br />