CCMIN090710 - Laserfiche WebLink

Regarding retention basin improvements, staff does not yet have a cost for these because the sense was that it would not be priced until the PUD was actually approved, but as stated previously, it will be based upon the impervious surface. Hendrick's share is 38.5 %, but this would be picked up by CLC. CLC's share is 34.3% and the Community Park's share is 6.7 %. Based upon this, the City would be responsible for 6.7% of the improvements to the detention basin. He added that the agreement staff was working on with SJAM and the ice center is that they would assume this cost as well as the cost for the purchase of the detention basin. If this project were to move forward, the 6.7% would most likely be eliminated, and the City's $3 million in park costs would be reduced. Commissioner Sullivan asked who would pay for this as, there is no commercial project. Mr. Bocian explained that the County would pick up this cost initially, and the City would thereafter be reimbursed by the commercial developer. Commissioner Sullivan confirmed that the developer contribution would also include the future commercial project, and in the interim the County is also paying this. Regarding affordable housing Mr. Bocian said this has been a challenge for many reasons. The City's inclusionary zoning ordinance does not deal with continuing care retirement communities. Furthermore, there are state regulations that limit what a City can and cannot do relative to affordable housing. There is no specific amount being paid for rent, but a service fee paid. All affordable housing is based upon components of household expenses related to rent. The City does not control or have restrictions on what someone will pay for food, medical care, transportation, but many of these are wrapped into CLC's costs. He said CLC and the City's Housing Commission have been very creative in working with the City. They have held a number of meetings and have arrived at something that works and is unique. CLC will use its best effort to make 15% of the independent living units, which are primarily the apartment units, available to the following income categories 5% at 100 %, 5% at 80 %, and 5% at 50% AMI rate. CLC needs to market and try to work its fee structure so it can have this sort of composition makeup within the development. Councilmember Sullivan confirmed with Mr. Bocian that this is not a service fee, per se, but the income category of residents living there. When they survey residents in the property, they will be able to say 5% of their residents living there have an income at the 50% AMI rate, for instance. Vice Mayor Thorne questioned if the City might be able to use the low income housing fund, noting recent demands for this fund. Mr. Bocian said this will be discussed later when talking about the annuity for the project. Early on, many affordable housing deals were worked out and surveyed like this; the goal was to make sure that when the development was completed, a broad make -up of people were living in the development. There was not a strong emphasis that rent had to be a certain amount, so this goes back and tries to rebirth the concept to meet CLC's unique structure and project. Councilmember Sullivan confirmed with Mr. Bocian that it was not related at all to the buy -in amount. Mr. Bocian explained also that what is seen is that when dealing with an independent senior project, the majority of the seniors are living there based upon their annual income. This is why rents are set at an amount at what their annual income can be used to pay for what it costs to live there on a monthly basis. However, when getting into added extended service care types of developments for seniors, the model degrades because many residents actually use their assets to help pay to live there. For example, at Parkview, it is income, as well as assets of City Council Minutes Page 8 of 15 September 7, 2010