Laserfiche WebLink
176 <br /> <br /> Mr. Bocian indicated that there could be some cost benefit <br /> and that he would look into the matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler stated that during the planning process, he talked <br /> to Ms. Bengtson, Parks and Community Services Director, regarding <br /> the two kitchens. It was the expectation then that Ridge View <br /> Commons would have a meal program, and therefore its kitchen would <br /> be unable to serve the Senior Center as well. There would be no <br /> way to consolidate the kitchens because the preparation of daily <br /> meals for Ridge View Commons would not be compatible with the kind <br /> of meals that would be prepared at the Senior Center. He added <br /> that should that situation change, he would be interested in <br /> having only one kitchen. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer inquired if there were a local policy to use local <br /> suppliers to furnish goods and services to Ridge View Commons. He <br /> indicated that taxpayers' money paid for the project, and <br /> patronizing local business would be good. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bocian answered that a procurement policy was adopted at <br /> the last Board meeting to make every attempt to identify local <br /> projects. <br /> <br /> Item 8d <br /> Canyon Meadows Pro~ect <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that he met with representatives of <br /> Matteson Investment Company and J L Construction regarding the <br /> Canyon Meadows Project and asked them why the units were being <br /> sold for more than the original proposal of $97,000 for one- <br /> bedroom units and $130,000 for two-bedroom units. The <br /> representatives explained that the project had undergone a lot of <br /> changes. The Matteson Investment Company had put in substantial <br /> off-site improvements and went through re-investment and payment <br /> of financial charges to get the project back rather than have it <br /> go to a rental or investment company. He added that the developer <br /> offered to contribute $100,000 to the City's Affordable Housing <br /> Fund as well as provide City, County and School District employees <br /> a $5,000 credit on 20 units. He recommended that Council consider <br /> sometime in the future, the condition that the Planning Commission <br /> placed that the project have a locked-in price that would not <br /> allow the developer to pass through any substantial increases in <br /> costs which he could regain in interest changes or cost of living <br /> increases. This would lead developers to focus on affordable <br /> housing projects and discourage the City from requiring <br /> unnecessary improvements. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes stated that there are too many variables in <br /> development, including market conditions and interest rates, that <br /> can affect a project. Having fixed prices and specific limits <br /> could lead developers to diminish the quality of the units, which <br /> would not be good either for the community or for affordable <br /> housing. <br /> <br /> - 12 - <br /> 4-3-90 <br /> <br /> <br />