• Inland Group (http://inlandconstruction.com/) is a development company based out of Washington. 
• One of their subsidiaries is Affinity Living Communities (http://affinityforliving.com/). 
• Senior, independent, 55+ (not assisted living)
• Estimated 150-200 units (may be adjusted)
• Market rate, high amenity (not low income)
• Anticipate a 4-5 story building
• Anticipate 1^st floor structured parking (100%)
• Want roughly 1.3-1.5 parking stalls per unit (may be adjusted)
• Not willing to use a shared parking ramp (non-starter item)
• Opposed to any commercial/ retail (but, open to discuss if required by City)
• Desire a spring 2018 construction
• Roughly 4.2 acres
• No assistance requested at this time (however, this project will likely trigger construction of public infrastructure, which will require city participation).

(D) Construction Deadline: Building permit 6-months after Closing and Certificate of Occupancy (CO) 30 months after Closing.  Includes right of re-entry agreement clause.  If project doesn't obtain building permit, city can take back property.  If project doesn't obtain CO, city can impose $50,000 penalty.

It should be noted, normally staff drafts this specific clause to leave discretion for the city to decide how to remedy in the event the developer defaults (i.e. the city chooses if they want to reclaim the property or impose a penalty).  The developer has requested a change to this section--they are asking for it to specifically describe when reclaiming the land will be an option, and specifically when imposing the penalty will be an option (rather than leaving up to the City's discretion). 

Staff reviewed this request with the City Attorney.  Staff is comfortable with the proposed change.  Obtaining a building permit is a significant investment for the developer (greater than $500,000).  The chances of the developer completing the entitlement process (several hundred thousand dollars), purchasing the property (nearly $700,000), and pulling a building permit (greater than $500,000), and then deciding not to complete the project is low.  If the developer needed to exit the project, it is more likely they would default before they paid for the building permit fee (e.g. former quick-serve restaurant proposal in The COR).

(E) Platting/ Development Agreement: must obtain plat, development agreement, site plan, and approved visual renderings before closing on purchase.

(F) Road Connections: use the city's past practice model (60% city and 40% developer).  Because the developer is only using one side of many roads, they would only pay 20% of said costs.  This is consistent with several recent projects.  At this point, the cost/ scope of road improvements required isn't known.  Within this specific case write-up, staff is also requesting the city complete the attached preliminary feasibility report for infrastructure needed adjacent/ near this proposed project.  This report will help the city understand the scope of improvements needed and the associated estimated costs. 

Looking forward--likely, staff will propose TIF District #14 (COR TIF District) to finance any needed public improvements.  This project will generate significant TIF dollars.

• Staff believes the proposed project meets the general direction provided by the EDA, PC and Council in September--in terms of site location and proposed use.
• Staff believes the attached PA is generally consistent with city's polices for selling city owned land and is comfortable with the asking price.  Staff is not requesting to go into closed session.
• Lastly, staff would recommend completing the attached Bolton & Menk work order (concept level feasibility report for nearby infrastructure).  This work will keep the project moving forward, and give both parties a better idea what costs should be expected, for a cost-share, for public infrastructure that will be needed as a result of this project.

• Please see attached EDA minutes.  The EDA is generally supportive of proposed project and the attached purchase agreement.
• Important note: the EDA did not see the attached redline changes.  These changes occurred after the EDA meeting.
• The EDA noted the new Concept C Layout/ Map does a better job of meeting the city's vision for a building the fronts Sunwood Drive and hides the parking.
• The EDA asked if any existing utilities would cause problems for this proposed project.  Staff is not aware of any causes for concern at this time.  The city recently completed an ALTA Survey for this property, and the city's Civil Engineer IV also did a preliminary site review.  Further detailed review will be needed.
• The EDA requested staff negotiate a cost-share for the attached Bolton & Menk work order.  Staff did reach an agreement with the developer to split the cost (50:50).