Laserfiche WebLink
30 <br />Mike Morrison <br />Development Agreement— Phase III Silver Lake Village Redevelopment <br />August 10, 2010 <br />Page 2 <br />They requested an 18 -month timeframe to commence development on the two (2) phases. Based upon the <br />above referenced development program, following is a listing of the proposed business terms for the new <br />Phase III Development Agreement: <br />1. General <br />a. Parties. The Agreement is between the City, IIRA and Apache Redevelopment LLC, the <br />Master Redeveloper for Phase I and Phase II. The Redeveloper is acting more as a land <br />Redeveloper in hying to find third parties to develop the Phase IIIA site (former Apache <br />Office site which is currently vacant and the 7A Cadwallader site), the Phase IIIB site <br />(former Don's Car Wash site which is currently vacant and the Baker's Square parking <br />sites) and the Phase IIIC site (former Fuel Mart and Fuel Mart Carwash sites). <br />b. Past claimed Defaults. The City/HRA and the Redeveloper will each waive all claims of <br />past defaults and the relationship will be governed by the new Phase III contract going <br />forward. <br />2. Surviving Provisions of the Phase I Development Agreement <br />a. Below Market Profit Tax Increment Assistance Increase. Following the final cost and <br />profit certification process for the Phase IA condos if the return to the Redeveloper is less <br />than 12% of the Total Development Cost (TDC) the HRA was to provide the Redeveloper <br />a note in a principal amount necessary for them to realize a 12% Profit. For Phase IA, the <br />Redeveloper profit was expected to be $3,192,382. Due to the downturn in the <br />condominium market and economy in general, sales slowed to level that wasn't expected. <br />The TDC for the project rose due to holding costs associated with unsold units. The TDC <br />were approximately $37.6 million. After paying the bank loan and other development <br />related costs, the Redeveloper received no profit and actually has a loss of $635,095. In <br />order to get to their desired 12% profit, the HRA would need to provide them with a <br />subordinate TIF note for $5,080,000. <br />This note is subordinate to the outstanding TIF revenue bonds that were sold for the <br />project. These bonds have a "sinking" provision which means that any unused discount <br />that isn't needed to pay debt service is used for prepayment on the bonds. Since these <br />bonds do not have a call date until February 1, 2014, the first opportunity for the <br />Redeveloper to receive any payment on this subordinate note is 2014, if the City is able to <br />refinance these bonds at better rates. If the City is unable to finance the bonds with better <br />rates, then the Redeveloper's payments will not be made until the bonds are paid in full. <br />Overall, it is estimated at this time that there will only be approximately $980,000 available <br />for payment on this subordinate note, which would only provide the Redeveloper with less <br />than a 1% profit (conservative estimate based upon no inflation). <br />3. Surviving Provisions of the Phase II Development Agreement <br />a. Shot_ Fall Note. The Redeveloper has finalized Phase IIA (town homes). Under the prior <br />agreement, if the City sold tax-exempt TIF revenue bonds at the request of the Redeveloper <br />and there were insufficient proceeds from this sale to repay the qualified costs, then the <br />Redeveloper would get a subordinate, short fall note. The original PAYGO TIF note was <br />for $937,520. Based upon preliminary sizing for tax-exempt TIF bonds completed in late <br />2009, it was estimated that the net proceeds would be approximately $610,000. Since the <br />Redeveloper did expend the $937,520, they would get a subordinate TIF note in the <br />amount of $327,520. '['his note would be payable from TIF generated from the town home <br />