Longmont Urban Renewal Authroity - September 15, 2026

I haven't even taken roll call yet. >> Oh, perfect. >> I'm calling the meeting to order. Uh, it's 5:34 p.m. Let's go ahead and do roll call. We'll start over here. >> Uh, here. Present. Chris. >> Thank you. Commissioner Chris, >> Commissioner Cuffer, >> Commissioner Marcy, >> Commissioner Parker, Commissioner, >> Commissioner Evus, Redevelopment Realation Manager, >> uh, Chair Popkin, >> Executive Director, Janu, >> uh, Harold Dominguez, City Manager, Dway, general counsel. Theresa Mall, treasurer, >> Cedar, assistant city manager. Great. Um, thank you. We will now move on to public invited to be heard. Are there any public members of the public wishing to offer comments on our agenda items or related topics to the Longwater Renewal Authority? Seeing none, we'll move on to item four, approval of the minutes. We actually have two items on this one. Uh, the first one is approval of the August 18th, 2026 minutes. The second item is going back to July, which we did approve, but I caught some errors in it. substantive errors in before signing. So, I'm going to be moving to reconsider that so that we can take an updated vote on that. Um, that's why there are two on there and one that looks familiar. Um, so uh are there any questions uh or corrections or updates to the August 18th, 2026 minutes? I just just had a comment to Marta because she was remote I thought and I didn't see but um apparently was it was via teams. >> Uh yes. >> Okay. >> On the roll call section number two on that August. >> Did you get a chance to vote to adjurnn because I remember they also kicked you out of the building. >> I don't believe I was still on in the journ because I I wasn't there at the end of the meeting. Thanks for asking. >> Correct. So we actually have that as an 8 to zero, not a 9 to zero carry >> for the adjournment. >> Okay. >> On that question, >> any other questions, clarifications, or corrections on the August meeting minutes? >> Seeing none, are there any motions? >> Second. >> Have a motion from uh Commissioner McCoy and a second from Commissioner Chris. Uh all those in favor. >> Any opposed? Upstate. >> Same. I know it's not it's my >> uh all right that uh sounds good. Um with no that passes uh what are my numbers here? Um uh 7 to 0 to two members abs. >> Yes. >> 7 to 0 to2 on that one for >> great. We are now on to item 4B. I'm going to go ahead and make a motion to reconsider the minutes from uh July uh July 21st, 2026. And I'd appreciate a second. >> Second. >> Thank you, Commissioner Call Pepper. Uh that's a motion, a second to reconsider this. That is not a vote on the minutes yet. Um is there any discussion on that motion? >> Seeing none, all those in favor of reconsidering? >> I. >> Any opposed? Well, I'm going to recuse myself. I wasn't there at that meeting. >> Uh, obscene. You mean? Yeah, >> that's fine. Okay. Um, all right. That will also that motion to reconsider passes. Uh, 8 to 0 to one. You got to test my my numbers today. Um, and then I will actually talk through just a couple of the substantive changes. You should have seen that actually in the packet in red. Um, mostly it was related to vote counts. There were a couple votes vote counts that were off due to abstensions or recusals mostly uh because of vice chairman Gily's faults of accusing himself appropriately um in that situation um which just threw off some of the count there. So I want to make sure that that was accurately corrected. Um were there Katie and Jen were there any other struck commissioner Marcen from being not present to present? >> You were present. Yes. Wanted to make sure to account for you accordingly. Uh are there any questions or discussions on those amendments? Okay, then I'll make a motion to approve uh the July amendments um with the amendments as presented in the pack. >> Second from council uh Commissioner Cffer. Is there any discussion on that motion? Hearing none. All those in favor? All those opposed? Any objections? Thank you. Um that also passes 8 to zero to one. >> Do you also have to note that um who's absent too? >> Um I thank you. Yeah, I just >> Yeah, >> thank you. Uh Commissioner Berthold and Prito are not currently present. Um we already had a note from Commissioner Berthold indicating that he is not coming tonight. >> And I saw you got my text, so >> yes, we're good. >> Great. >> Okay. I do expect Commissioner Pzer to be joining us when I receive a test. So, all righty. U moving on. Thank you for those prompt uh reviews there. We'll move on to items item five, report from the executive director. Uh no, sorry, reading the wrong thing. Move on to item excuse me. Uh five, report from the executive director. Are there any items? I just have um I just wanted to show you a picture of the transit center um because construction and um that's really the the Kaufman Street extension that started and so um Katie I don't know if you have any other information about what's happening. So just wanted to give everybody the excitement that something's happening. >> Yeah. Um there's you're going to start to see some movement out in first and Maine um for the transit center site. So, in the next few days, probably sometime next week, I'd say, um you're going to start seeing what's called clear and grabbing, which happens. So, think of site getting the site level to start doing those um to start building the transit center. Um so, there'll be some fencing that's going up um and um to get kind of those trees, get the site leveled out. There's an existing um kind of like sidewalk patio area that's still existing out at 23 South Main. So that'll come out. Um and then you'll start to see the fences go up for kind of that overexit will take place shortly after that. Um so think probably you know mid Novemberish. Um as you can imagine construction is kind of a fluid fluid thing. So, as soon as I say a date, it'll change, but the goal is still to be under constru to start that construction in October, which we're going to hit um and then be completed um from the garage perspective by December of 2027. So, we're moving forward. >> Excellent. >> Are we sorry, are we planning any kind of formal groundbreaking for the whole project? You know, hard hats go to >> Yeah. So, um we're So multi- agency groundbreaking. >> So right now um Dole is committed to be there. C do DOT's committed to be there. RTD RTD's committed. Front range passenger rail. >> C dot. >> Yeah. Um some representatives from the broader state government. >> City warm up there. >> Yeah. >> Um city of Longmont. >> I hear the mayor. Yeah. is uh I think we're looking at October 9th at this point and >> um generally this is different because a all of these agencies have participated in it. >> B this is the first project that is coming out of the ground in terms of the joint service rail agreement. >> Yeah. >> Um between um Denver and Fort Collins. Um, so all everybody's going to be involved in this. >> So more information is coming with invitations and that sort of thing. >> So that picture was from like a day ago or >> today. >> Yeah. >> Green pipes. >> Is that sewer? >> Y. >> Great. Thanks for >> um we're now on to item 6A for regular business. That's tax increment revenue agreement uh for first main urban renewal plan resolution uh 202613A or 13 >> 13 >> 13 a resolution of the board >> and I also will note when the packet went out originally this had resolution 11 but um it actually is 13 and so we'll do 12 next because we're the one who reordered the agenda. We just wanted to make the correction on the the actual number. Um, so this is a resolution that we've talked about quite a bit um already with the deal points related to um the downtown development authority and um essentially we've been having this conversation for several months and the DDA voted um on the the deal points essentially of this IGA um at their meeting on the August 26th and the DDA gave the leeway for the chair and for Kimberly McKe the executive director to make some final changes um related to that. So we if we'll go to the >> um I probably need to >> Oh, that's right. >> Um consistent with previous stances and I want to make taking the minutes slightly more difficult and I don't recusing myself. >> Thank you for that. Thank you, Vice Chairman Gilbury. And I also wanted to let the record reflect that uh Commissioner Pto entered the meeting and join the meeting at 5:40 p.m. as well. >> Uh really quick comment. Uh since I do sit on the DBA board, I have been refusing myself about these conversations from the DBA so I can participate in this capacity. >> Oh, thank you. >> Yeah. And same with um same with Commissioner Parker. >> Yeah. Thank you both for disclosing that appreciate. >> Yeah. So, uh so essentially um when we had been talking about this last at the meeting um in in August here at the urban renewal authority, we had talked about the idea that the dollars because there's overlapping districts um and this map that's on the screen now shows where those the overlap is. So there's five parcels where there is an overlap of the districts and so we have to have an agreement about how we agree to share that revenue and um share that obviously with the county um as they're doing their calculations. We've um and when I say we really mean Teresa has been having lots of conversations with the assessor's office about how they would do that calculation for us. And essentially um what we brought to you last time in terms of deal points was that we thought that those dollars would flow to the DVA and that they would remit them to the urban renewal authority. That's not what's in your packet. what's in your packet is that the dollars would um the base itself would go to directly from the county um to the DVA and then the increment would for the life of the urban renewal authority flow to um the urban renewal authority and then the the urban renewal authority would remit the five mills to the DDA. Um so that's consistent with some of the other agreements that we have put together um with other tax amenities, but this has the other layer of the complexity of the overwhelming districts. Um so that looks a little bit different than what we talked about. So I wanted to highlight that. Um the tax increment revenue um that's foregone by the DBA is estimated it's modeled out to be $19.5 million and that's based on that development plan that we've talked about um you know for this area. It's really the mixed use that goes around the transit center and the private office building that would be part of the front range overall site plan and then um which eventually would be parcled out but it would be it own set on its own parcel and then the um multif family um housing that's on the property the biggest property that's there on the the eastern edge of this map. And so if we were to reach that collection, that collection is coming from all of those other agreements that we had with the other taxing entities. So it's the increment that's coming from the school district, the um St. rain left hand not from northern because we have a pass through agreement from the city of Palma and from Boulder County that those dollars if they were to reach that collection of $19.5 million this agreement says that we would go back to the uh DDA and have a conversation about how those how that split would happen um you know that would be mutually agreed upon in the future. The other thing that this agreement does is talk about what happens if there is an expansion of the overlap. That is something that could happen. Um, and I will and I'm going to walk over there obviously and just show that the mixeduse building um also fronts on Main Street. And so there is a possibility that there's an expansion that happens later related to that. So this agreement contemplates that there could be a further extension of that. Um and so that this would apply moving forward. >> In that case would that be most likely an extension of the TTA? >> Yes. >> That you're talking about there not because we're that's already within the urban. >> Right. So um because there will be a new lot configuration that happens. It could either be um parsed out by the assessor's office about how that works. So make it probably looks maybe easier if there is it's all one parcel. Um but there is a way that they would just have to allocate otherwise you know a share percentage that goes to the urban renewal authority and DD overlap and a percentage that would just go to the URA if something didn't change in terms of the the overlap moving forward. And um with that I'm open to any other questions that you have. I I had a just a note I made to myself on page 12 of the packet. The first paragraph um refers to the you are a boundary and I thought well is that going to be a little separate entity or do you just mean it doesn't like it comes across as a name rather than just a boundary area. So I just wrote it down because I had to move this in a little bit in disjointed ways and I'm like okay that's not clear about that. So >> yeah I think it's essentially the um this urban renewal area is that that's in the dotted red line. So it was referring to it separate as your boundary. >> Yeah the urban renewal boundary that is is part of this agreement. Yeah, >> I'm sitting here thinking about the special districts that I'm representing here on board and the write up that we had many times. The impact that it was going to have on the DDA. This this softened that is what I'm gathering and it's not as big as a kid because of the 5-year-old go back and there was another piece of that that I trying to formulate. I just kind of wanted to put that together to think it it's doable and it's not as big as a hit that the study was showing. >> Yeah. So, what the study was modeled on is this idea that that this um area where the urban rural authority would be entirely encompassed by the DEA. Um and so that would be an expansion. It was contemplated that that overlap would be um over all of the burles that are in the urban rural authority area. And that's not what's happening here. um this agreement I think allows for that to contentionally happen but that's not what's contemplated with that 19.5 that is um modeled out and the other thing that it contemplated is then the five mills that uh would be part of that if the urban if the DDA were to expand the five mills would then be assessed to all of those properties. the model was assuming that those five mills would then flow to this project and that's not the agreement that that we struck. So, um hopefully that answered your questions. >> Sure. >> And I think it was a big impact to the DVA if both of those things were true. If if there was an expansion, then all of the five mills that would have otherwise gone to the DVA would then go to the urban rural authority. That would have been a big impact to the DBA overall. And and then last time when we were talking about it, there was this piece of it that ongoing if we needed to renegotiate a piece of it, we could do that based on what the impact of the DDA would have like if it was moving into that URA. Do I have that correct? So I think what it's saying is that um the DBA's protection is that it's capped the amount that is available in permit. So if this were all to then be annexed into the DDA, it would it's not a cap exactly, but it's essentially saying we reach that dollar figure, then there has to has to be a renegotiation. So it's not a cap and it actually says that in the agreement that it's not a cap but it's modeled based on the increment that would come from the existing overlap that's shown on this map. So the DDA would um you know if there were other projects that came forward and there was a greater overlap then you would assume that there would be greater increment that would happen. Okay. >> Hopefully that answers the question. >> Okay. following question. The county assessor is going to make the payment both to the DDA and to the the city. And you're saying that until you reach um 19.5 million, pretty much all of it's going to go to the urban renewal. Is it the urban renewal's um responsibility to alert the county assessing when that has been reached and they need to now start? >> So, I didn't see that. I didn't see that particular. it's >> it's not necessarily what would happen with uh the reaching out to the assessor's office, but if we were to reach that, then we would need to reach out to the DDA and have a conversation for the rest of the life of the urban renewal authority, which is a 25-year clock. The DDA itself would exist beyond the 25-year clock. And so, um, you know, they're because the DDA is in their second or like 30-year clock. So they could and they can extend beyond. So uh it would it would end whatever is collected would end at the end of the 25 years and then the DBA would go back and collect what they have been collecting. So the treasur would be >> retroactively they'll collect what that difference would be. >> No. So at the end of the 25 years, say there's instead of 19.5 million, it's 20 million. That half a million dollars would be able to be um retained by the urban removal authority if at that point we negotiated with the DDA and said we can share it or the DDA gets it all or that half a million um goes to X. So the urban renewal authority like we would still be collecting it through the 25 years but at 19.5 and north of that we would have a conversation with TVA about how that would then be shared to the end of the urban or renewal clock. >> The analogy I like to use it's like a car you know when you buy a new car and the car warranty is 10 years or 100,000 miles whichever comes first. So, in this case, it's 25 years or 19.5 million, whichever comes first. >> That's a great way to >> And are we going to constantly get phone calls about extending our warranty? >> It might be helpful to have a chart. >> Yeah. So the the urban renewal authority is going to collect for the life of the urban renewal authority. But if we are over 19.5 million, we will have to have a new agreement with the DDA about how that revenue >> is shared or given to the DDA or kept by the or or give it back to the taxing entities. That's also to happen. >> And if it's expanded and more properties are added, then that clock would be different than the initial clock. >> No, it would be the same clock. If they're brought in 5 years later, they only have 20 years on those boundaries. >> You just negotiate that. >> But unless you created a new boundary that >> you >> Yeah, it so it's it's >> but that would be a different urban renewal area. >> Different urban renewal area. >> Yeah. >> Great. >> Thank you, Mr. Chris. Any other questions or discussion on this matter? Need a motion? >> I do. So move. >> That's a motion to approve item 6A. Uh resolution 202613. Correct. >> Thank you. I have a motion to approve the resolution from Commissioner McCoy. Second. A second from Commissioner Kover. Uh thank you. Is there any discussion on the motion? >> Would like to have the chart added to if that's possible. I think that's just a extra headings maybe. We can certainly do that if you want to make it subject to the city attorney um reviewing and approving. >> What kind what kind of charge? I think it's just essentially showing like >> this, you know, this amount goes to this goes to LDA and for this amount of time and then if there are more properties, what how that might parcel out. >> I think just a visual now that we of all these agreements that have been going through I think where my checklist is going with this and correct me if I'm wrong. Just a visual like what's the matrix of who's spending what where, who's overseeing what and like where the go. This is obviously one specific agreement. So the chart wouldn't be tied to that one. It's more of a master like what is actually happening for the sake. Is that correct? >> And maybe it's just my frame of reference. >> I think we can work on that for educational materials in general. >> If it wants to be part of the agreement, we can certainly do it. I just would say we would want to have it be subject to um and obviously we would work with Teresa and I would we would we would make sure that that um met our standards and we would just have the city attorney >> and this will be coming back to >> general council the city council >> it it doesn't because this is an agreement between the DDA and urban so I if I spoke the general counsel would review this. So, I'm I'm I'm reading this suggestion as more of an educational material here, not specific to the motion or the exact resolution. So, if you're okay with it, we'll proceed with the the resolution plainly as presented and we can discuss what just from a public understanding and general commission understanding. >> Sounds good. >> Any other discussion? Yeah, >> I was say I >> Okay. Um all those in favor on the motion to approve. Um any opposed? Any abstained? We have commission uh commissioner Gilv is recused. Um so that uh passes unanimously. Thank you for all the work on all of these different uh first committee tip agreements. So that that is approved. Uh what am I 8 to 0 to one? >> Right. >> No 9 to zero. Sorry. Commissioner Prito's here. It is 9 to 0 to one. >> Well to zero. Yep, you're correct. With one recusal. Thank you for getting that. >> Well, so that would be the nine. The nine, not 10. There we go. >> Welcome back. >> That passed in case you're wondering. Um, we are now on to item 6B. Uh, another tax increment revenue agreement. Um, that's for the Twin Peaks Urban Renewal Plan, TIFF area number two. This is the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Resolution 202612. Uh Katie, Jen, anything you want to present on this? >> I I'll just You want to do that? >> No, you wrote it. >> You go. >> Um this is very similar to the other Northern Water um agreement that you have seen. And so what will happen is that the increment will come in to Lura that will come in and I I cannot explain this without using my hands. And then it'll go through and so it then will go back to Northern Water. So it's a pass through agreement. Um, we'll take then bring it back to them. >> Any other questions? >> So, to be clear, they're not committing any of their correct any of their tax. Correct. >> Correct. Any discussion or questions on this resolution? Seeing none. Is there a motion to approve items? Uh resolution uh Laura 2026-12. >> Second. >> Thank you. I have a motion to approve from Commissioner McCoy and a second from Commissioner Garing. Is there any discussion on the motion? >> Uh seeing none. All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed? Um any extensions that passes 10 to 0 to zero. No refusals. Um before we move on to the items uh 6C, I just want to note for the record and for the public um that when we are talking about tax improvement financing um and tiff agreements, these are not new taxes. These are not tax increases. These are leveraging existing tax revenue and capturing that specifically. Just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page there. Um, all right. With that, uh, we're going to move to item 6 C, a consideration of a letter of support for front for front range passenger rail and the Colorado connector. Um, two notes on this one. We had an early discussion a few months ago in this very body about whether it was appropriate for HURO to support this or take a position on this. Um, today I offer a letter. You should have a hard copy in front of you that is different from the version in the packet. Um, so I do want to note that and we'll give you a minute to read that since we're handing that out. Um that was I I took a bit of a pen to that to make it a little bit more lurocentric and add um one or two other uh touches to that. Take a minute uh to read this letter. If anyone needs a hard copy, please just raise your hand that should be in front of you there. Um we will sit in silence very comfortably for one minute while you read. Did you know I have the planet? It seems to That's right. So, is this intended to replace the one that was in our packet? Okay. though you could consider both of these two drafts and if you like one over the other consider that too wanted to offer I wanted to offer this version for the board's consideration >> um but feel free to continue to reference that um wanted to just open up for discussion um we can we can do a little bit of word smithing if that's helpful and I'd love to understand if the board maybe first as a check does want to take a position and then we can clarify some of that wording if we don't want to take a position on this then we don't have to. So a quick gut check on that would be appreciated. Yeah. Council commissioner. >> Sure. Um I think this would be the appropriate board to have support. I don't think I would feel comfortable doing that on the city council side. The reason why I'm comfortable here is because of a lot of the things that you said. Also, by having this rail come into town, we're investing potential sales tax revenue by having additional visitors. This is connecting with this area that will see additional traffic. Um, so I do believe that it is in their best interest in this body to provide a letter. >> Thank you, Commissioner Mars. >> Thank you, Chair. My memory is that on the council side, we did adopt a resolution of support. Um, >> not for the not for the ballot measure. >> No, not for the >> Yes, we did. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I has >> this is not for Sorry to interrupt. This is not for the ballot measure. >> That's what I wanted. I >> Yeah. No. Um, has has FRPR are they aware that we've hooked on this at all? that we would just offer this unsolicited. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Other questions pref uh I'd prefer that we focus initial comments on like do we want to take a position or not? >> What advantage is there for um urban want to offer this letter? What advantage is there to us and what advantage is there to >> uh I'll answer only really to the to us. So I'll answer from my perspective on this, but I welcome the board's discussion on this. My initial take is that we are somewhat piggybacking off of what Commissioner Caulifford was saying. We are speaking to the relevance of the the rail station and the rail proposal. Um and frankly the the rail service, the joint service that is already funded and committed on the through the starter service. Um we're speaking to the relevance of that to the success of some of the urban renewal areas that this board oversees um that directly relate to the tiff revenue that is collected and the success of the urban renewal efforts and overall downtown revitalization or at least for in this specific urban renewal area that downtown revitalization. I think the other benefit is that we are communicating the public to the public the relevance of uh the rail station and the rail proposal um to the reactivation of parts of our community. >> Commission. >> Yeah. Just to say for the record at a previous LDDA board meeting, the LDA board took a similar stance and letter of support in regards to how it directly relates to the revitalization of downtown. the LDBAS master plan. So it's I feel like on that basis I'm I don't I feel comfortable with a similar stance from Laura. >> Thank you. >> I particularly like the point where you point out that the history there. I think that that helps some of the folks that that uh are out there, you know, taxpayers that are, you know, really cautious about this. And so just to read between the lines, you would be comfortable taking a position as commissioner on this. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Other indicators on that you feel strongly? Yeah. Commissioner Lman, >> thanks. I I going to work with that if we decide that we're going to do that. >> Sure. >> Um try not to do that. I I think some question maybe to what um Commissioner Chris was asking. We had this conversation several months ago. My concern that I brought up at that time was is this going to miscon now or I heard somebody suggest maybe it's unsolicited and what from Laura what is the focus on here? Maybe I can answer the question about timing. Um when we were asked to bring this forward to put on that agenda and there was a conversation about not taking a position then and incorporating some of the components that were more specific to urban renewals work in this area and the tie. So the draft that I offered and this draft that the chairs offered do both of those things right it's the letter of support it does not take a position neither take a position on the ballot question itself. However, the conversation that you had was around whether or not it it was could be construed that way and whether or not it should be taken up um in advance of the the ballot itself. And so this is the meeting at which um you know we weren't ready to have that conversation before then. They had a special meeting that was focused only on first and main matters. So this is the timing. So the reason that it is on this agenda is because if you wanted to take a position on the ballot, this is the only opportunity opportunity that you would have. >> And so again, the letter currently in it state does not take a position on the ballot measure. But it does help educate the public about the relevance to that decision that should they wish to exercise their voting authority. I'm sorry, their their voting rights um on this issue. So I think just to understand is Laura at this time given all the background and no ask right now if I'm hearing correctly if if Laura wants to support a ballot measure then Laura should discuss is that what this letter is about is this letter about dissuading Longmont resident concerns about fasttracks or other things which that's part of my major um editing >> for Are we just trying to say, hey, SRP R is important in 2026? Like I just think this group needs to make a decision. What are we trying to say? >> The letter in in its current form does not take a position on the balance. >> Well, I read the letter and yes, thank you. Uh, Commissioner, that was >> um Yeah. So, so I look at, so I looked at the old resolution that we had um that Joan had sent out and this was part of the FRA passenger rail. Um, you know, so I look at that where it's just, you know, a resolution is just how where the body stands. When I look at this letter, we are writing a letter or it's a letter written to general manager Sal Pace. >> He knows the history. So, um, so I'm wondering the intended audience and so then is it appropriate to even have this paragraph in there or did we want the focus of the letter to um to highlight the importance of front range of of transit front range passenger rail um and the significance the impact it can have on our work as as a urban renewal authority. So then in that case I don't agree that that this is the appropriate placement for really going into RTD and the field promises um if the intended audience is um Sal Pace from Front Range Passenger Rail. So So it could be that it's it's misplaced in here. Um and then or are we looking to then instead of having this have a resolution where something a comment like this would make sense whereas and then therefore be resolved then we go into the rationale for supporting um front range passenger rail. So that's that's my thought. >> Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Franc. >> Um, going off both. Um, >> are you still the mayor in this meeting? Commissioner, I don't know. Um, and commissioner, what you mean? Um, I would agree. I think clarifying like who's the audience? I think if residents of Baltimore are in the audience, then >> it feels like we're taking a position >> and and then it would make sense to use that language and take a position which I wouldn't mind because with my Lura hat on speaking of this area within Hangma, all of the development that's happening, the investment that goes in if this passes makes total sense to me, but if we're not taking a position and it's just to this gentleman. I'm curious like who's he going to share it with? If it's not the residence, then yeah, then maybe that language is not necessary. And so back to Commissioner Luchim, like do you want to take a position or vote or discuss? >> And so that's kind of >> Yeah, that's kind of my rationale behind it. Like if we're taking a position, yes, the new language makes sense. We're we're talking directly to the voters saying this is such an investment to this area of law and could be transformative, but if not, then let's take out all the extra language that I said. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Marson. >> Thank you. I'll be fairly quick, Mr. Chair. I I think to say that the ballot me that this isn't about the ballot measure, I think would be artful at best. I understand it does not explicitly endorse the ballot measure, but anyone who's engaged with this conversation will see that as an endorsement of the ballot measure. So, I think everyone making a vote on that has to be comfortable with that reality whether the letter explicitly says it or not. Um, I personally would actually be more comfortable endorsing something like this with my council hat on because of the political implication rather than the urban renewal implication that this board represents. I do not personally feel that this board should take a position on this. I understand completely the economic impact of First Main of FRPR and the way it can revitalize downtown. I think LBA speaking authority is great. I think as a taxing mechanism, as an entity that does what this commission does, it does not make a ton of sense to me to spend a great deal of time word smithing a letter. If in the event the majority disagrees with me, I I I appreciate your work and I I I certainly appreciate the the call out to what we hear often about this issue regarding the the fast tracks issue. I would prefer to go back to the letter that is in our packet presented by staff which um but my preference honestly would be to take a position on this especially because there's no way for us to say that this isn't really about the election but about the ball in my >> Okay. Thank you. >> So I agree. I think the letter needs to be quite a bit more general just about transportation you know like bringing transportation into the city. I know that C dot has some different ideas or I guess maybe adjacent ideas with their transportation hubs and and maybe just acknowledging that this is a commitment to have a transportation hub within Walmart rather than out on another state rather than you know worrying about what comes from Boulder that kind of thing. I think that's appropriate. I think the first letter more directly um addresses that. The second letter, although satisfying in some levels, uh, is a little too specific in that it it kind of references the ballot measure in if you know, it doesn't specifically say about, but it kind of references all the issues around it. >> Yeah. >> And um, yeah. And I mean, the front range passenger rail is one activity. There are other activities planned through seed dot and other mechanisms to bring transportation and that transportation hub doesn't have to just stick with front range pass rail you know it's going to take buses it's going to take and and who knows what the future will bring especially CEO has a lot of irons and fire pretty savvy engineers there I got to tell you so I I think I would rather not have um a specific letter even though this one is more generalized. It also mentions front range passenger route we could add and other transportation options just to keep it more general and not specific to front range pass around there but kind of bypassing the idea of the ballot measure. >> Okay, um so would it be appropriate because Southpace already knows like this is already passed. It's already on the ballot. Would it make sense for us to just change the title of the original letter to dear Long enough residents um to understand for them to understand like why this area is important and why we think transportation makes sense because when we look at transportation in the US and a lot of transportation hubs are outside of urban renewal areas. They're on the outskirts and >> uh then development has to come come there. With our situation it's different. Our transportation hub is in the heart of our downtown. So, our situation is different than others. And I think it makes sense for us to say, "Hey, you know, we're special because this is going to transform our downtown that's already kind of working in our favor. >> Yeah. I think the advanced work of rail does not end if a ballot measure doesn't pass. So, I think if we I actually would support a letter that goes to the community instead of not an individual, but prefacing that this is not Laura is not going out and um supporting a ballot measure. But what we are doing is we're endorsing rail and we're endorsing enhancing front range passenger rail regardless of a ballot outcome. >> That's the operator, >> right? or >> or the operator, >> right? >> Yeah. It's about transportation, >> right? >> And >> okay, >> and connecting Longmont specifically. >> I'm going to ask a probing question where right now just basically show of hands, not a formal motion. Um, who's in favor of taking a position on the ballot measure itself? >> I don't care. So, those in favor of taking a position uh I guess let me I'll ask you this. Take uh taking a supportive position on the on the front range passenger rail ballot initiative from Laura >> Lura from Laura that was opposed to having Laura take that position. Okay, I see a majority there. So, that's off the table here. Just wanted to kind of clear that up. Um, let me ask a different question now. Those in favor of not writing anything from this board at this moment. >> You're not hurting my feelings. >> 5050. >> It would depend on what it what the letter said. >> Well, we could we can work on what the letter would say if we want to send the letter if we want to write something about rail supportively in general. If people don't if if enough commissioners don't want to take a public position on rail at this moment from this board, we don't have to and then we can not belabor the point further. So that's what I'm trying to get. So all those in favor of not taking a position on rail from this board at this time. Okay. So I see a majority of people interested in taking some position. Um, let me bring up Commissioner McGelry's suggestion before Vice Chairman Gily's suggestion. Um, which do you want to restate that? >> Yeah. I mean, dear Longmont community, not dear S. That's a big change. And then literally lean in with this. We're not a board that's out to support a ballot initiative. This letter is about supporting rail and how it um and and its direct connection to the core of what Laura's purpose is. >> Um and I'm comfortable mentioning front range passenger rail and advancing that effort but being very clear in the letter but this is not supporting a ballot initiative. >> Yeah. And then in in addition to that also include that whether or not the ballot measure passes there are still going to be three dedicated routes. The station will still be built. There is a joint service agreement where the money from RTD is being funneled or being allocated to create these stations to create um the transit. So the there contracts there's contracts there. There's, you know, we're it's happening. It's happening. So whether or not the community decides 10 >> or three, >> we're still going to have rail service and we support this. >> Commissioner Card and I think maybe instead of calling it a letter, we call it a statement. our position. >> Um because we need to educate the the community that >> we're transforming this area and we need these pieces. We believe we need these pieces in this area to make it as successful as possible by having interconnected rail, having intercity bus and long range buses. Um, we need to help the community see the vision of what we're wanting to do with this area and we're helping plant the seed to say this is where we think this area is going to go. This is what we think we need to get there. >> Commissioner Mings pass. >> Okay. Commissioner, >> I'm just curious. this starting to sound a little bit like a PR meeting or like an education and outreach about the lure and what lur does and I'm not saying no but I just I don't think that's um >> I don't think that's I don't think that's our scope >> it's not where I started correct >> and so if we want to talk about marketing and things like that do I believe law residents uh the majority of law residents do not know what's happening in this room right now and they have no idea about the direction and how the developments uh apartment buildings get approved probably. That's a great percent of the 100,000 people. Is that something this group wants to work on right now? Um I would put a question mark. I do think there is an opportunity for a different body >> that is constitute a lot of folks that are sitting at this table that could maybe think about how you all want to address >> um the work that's being done just to assist >> um I agree and um with commissioner loman and also with commissioner uh caloffer I think what we're doing here is we're saying we're developing the first and main station to advance transportation to build the lower downtown. And it it is more of a statement of why are we doing all this? Why are the roads torn up? Why are we buying up all this land? You know, and and why does it matter right now? >> And I think if we answer those questions to the community, I think they'll be much more impressed and interested in what we're doing. >> Sure. Commissioner Marcy. >> Thank you, Chair. I guess I need some help understanding what the benefit is here. Um, I don't see it like I I I don't I I I I see the benefit of all the things that we're talking about, right, of educating the community. >> Yeah. I also know that the city has a com shop that is actively working to make sure that everybody in the community is aware. I mean, you walk into the building and you see the the sketches of First and Main and what it's going to look like. Like that is an ongoing project that I think everyone here on staff at the city side has been actively working on for a long time. I don't you know it's not a time thing necessarily in the meeting context you know whatever but first in Maine is being transformed regardless of whether this board I mean that the the work is happening you saw the photos it's happening it comes what will happen within the context of that I I understand that this board wants to be affirmative and wants to be forward thinking and lean into it I don't I don't see the benefit of of this specific action somewhat to commission's point regardless of what you know of what we do it's it's happening I would rather see staff work dedicated to what they're already doing um on this piece. So, >> thanks. Um listening to the discussion and recognizing that the groups indicated that we are not looking to take a position on the ballot measure. Um I'm going to make a motion to table this indefinitely. >> Um which would I'll make a motion to table indefinitely and then I'll explain direction. >> Second. So motion from chair Popkin to table the uh this letter on from HS indefinitely second from the commissioner Marc um I'll briefly explain the thought process there that does not mean we have taken a position and on any of the topics here it allows us to remove it from the table at any time if we do decide this would be valuable to do um for instance if after a ballot measure is decided we wanted to just state kind of the relevance of the work that we're doing here there could be a public education component of that. We can consider that at any time between now and there if someone makes a motion to remove from the table and the body wants to reconsider this. Um, as a reminder, we brought this forward here, both versions of this, um, kind of at the as we were as this group was kind of figuring out if we wanted to position on this earlier this year. Um, and so I really really do appreciate the thoughtful discussion. Um, there's been a motion, a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Um, and I just want to clarify the original intent of the letter was before the board meeting um to say Laura does support the board to put it onto the ball. My memory serves me. This was more for the board, the currently passenger board more so than anybody else. Correct. I think that you focus on on the agenda for discussion and the discussion was not necessarily related to urging the um the board to put anything on the ballot. So I think it was more general um in nature. >> Yeah, that doesn't fully line up with my recollection of the intent at least behind all of the members selected. Is >> there other discussion on the motion to table? I'll just make a note that the staff one and I just read this one. The staff one to me captures I think what Laura was originally wanting to do. I think it's a great letter and if the person that was going to receive itself he's not aware of all the commitments in the back working on then I think it's a great letter to >> that we can largely still do just as anformational items. >> Yeah. I can talk with Jen about just making sure they're aware of the work that we're doing. >> I don't think that requires >> I don't think that requires a formal if that I I see the Thank you. >> Any other discussion on the motion? Any other discussion on motion to tableitely? >> Seeing none. Um all those in favor of the motion to table indefinitely. >> I all those opposed? Uh there are no recusals, any abstensions? Seeing none, that so passes uh 9 to one to zero with uh Commissioner Cuffer host. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Great. Thank you. We're going to move on to our special reports and presentations. Uh in 7A, um we have uh guests here to make that presentation. Um before I turn it over to the development team, um I want to remind Laura of a little bit of the context for this. Um so at our last meeting, uh we shared that uh Jen and I shared that the development team had asked to present to Laura, um about the project they're working on. Um the board indicated at that time they were open to hearing their presentation. Um there is no decision before Lura on this project at this time. Um this is purelyformational. Feel free to ask clarifying questions. Feel free to ask non-clarifying questions, whatever you want to do. Um, but uh, given the board's questions and discussion this year on housing, on uh, affordable, attainable, market rate housing on for sale versus rental housing, um, and how that relates to remediating blight and the public improvements that Laura helps to facilitate, um, I thought that this would be productive for the board to consider to refine our thinking as we go forward. So again, there is no decision tonight on anything presented before you. Feel free to take notes and ask questions and we will go from there. With that said, I will turn it over to Jen who will turn it over to the development team. >> I just I just would um preface the this with uh everything that the chair just said and that um we received this presentation this morning. So we have not yet gone through all of the requests that are here. So, just as a matter of clarity, the um Teresa, while she received this today, did not have the time to to go through and check um you know, there's a request for dollars. We um as we've talked about previously, there's a um we have this area that is the Twin Peaks area where there is a a tip area. Number two, um it includes both the area where the Pines Development is and these parcels. um as part of the negotiations for the overall um tax increment financing area with those other taxing entities. Some of those have caps of how much we can collect overall for both um for both of these areas. Um so the Hines property area and the and this area that you're going to hear about this evening. So, I just wanted to highlight that because um even if there even if these numbers are the numbers um it may not be the tiff that's available because there are caps that are in place that we have at those taxing entities. Um, I did want to note that this um that there's a site plan that has been approved for Onsite with the Peaks. Um, and they received an extension um >> approved by >> approved a staff uh extension of the the original approval and that the um approval for the entitlement essentially goes through June 30th of 2028. So um with that, I'm going to hand it off to to the team and you can introduce yourselves. I'll move so you can sit here and >> thank you all. Really appreciate it. I appreciate you inviting us here tonight. My name is Andrew Stevens. I'm with Silver Development. That's my dad, John Stevens. And then some of you, most of you probably know Tony Chicone as well. Um, so our project is 97 for sale attached town homes. Um, we have a roughly 7 acre site is just east of the Hobby Lobby property and then west of the extra space storage on the south side of Nelson Road. Um, we're going to be yielding roughly 176,000 square ft of finished floor area. It's 100% ownership is the intent. Um, and we have five different unit types, two different building types, threetory and two story. Um, and it's within walking distance to the Twin Peak Mall. Um, as I understand it, it's also walking distance to the bus rapid transit uh stop, which I think is going to be u two or 300 yards to the west of us on Nelson. This is our projected pricing. Um, our average unit size is roughly 1,800 square feet. Um, they range from two to four bed, two and a half to three and a half bath. Uh, our least expensive unit we're projecting $430,000. Um, just under $300 a square foot and the most expensive unit, which is quite a bit larger at 640,000. Um, so the overall weighted average square footage price projection we have is 300, excuse me, $300 per square foot. Here's an example of the twotory elevation. Um, this has four units. We have two wider units on the ends roughly 26T wide and then two 22 foot wide in the middle. And there's also um five and six unit twotory buildings as well. U this is a threetory building. We have nine of these buildings in here. Um these each have six units. We have a twocar garage, wide units on either end and then in the middle and then in the very middle those are the those are the type one $430,000 units right there with tandem garages. >> We say tandem that's two cars front to back. >> Yeah, front to back. Mhm. It's a tight tandem, but it it does qualify as a tandem. So, this is the current gap. These are sort of our rough numbers here. Um, our project costs right now are looking to be roughly $53 million across the whole project. Um, and then at that $300 a square foot, $296 a square foot. Um, netting out real estate commissions and so forth, we're looking at gross, excuse me, net sales proceeds of 54.5 million roughly. That leaves a return of 1.7 million, which is roughly at 3.2 2% margin which is extraordinarily low. Um makes it so we can't proceed with the project right now. Um we had a company in Denver called THK Associates who's very familiar with urban renewal tiff special districts and so forth conduct survey of various other builders who build this type of product and really the minimum margin that they look for is about 12%. Um our costs have escalated pretty significantly over the course of the entitlement period and after um we started this project back in middle of 2021. Um entitlement took four years and uh costs have escalated throughout that time frame. Um the total tiff that we calculated if everything was available was roughly 10.5 to 11 million over the remaining 2.3 year tiff plot period. Um discounting that back at 6 12% that yields 5.5 million in today's dollars. So that money in today's dollars brings our return up quite a bit. That gives us a 13.6% six% uh margin which we can definitely proceed with that that is a number certainly and I understand obviously that um we're subject to caps on tiff that we can capture of course I saw that unfortunately northern we won't get any money from them but this is just numbers for argument sake um this here talks about the um pricing where we would be at if not for TIFF if we were to proceed without any TIFF reimbursement. Um across that 5.5 million, you spread that across 97 units and you end up with roughly $57,000 per unit that we would have to make up for um to reach an acceptable margin. And that's above market. That's $30 $32 a square foot higher than where we're at right now. And the comps um just won't support that, unfortunately. Um, for those who are less familiar with comps, can you just explain? >> Oh, I'm sorry. The the comparables, the comparable um sales data of similar similar type units, similar footage and so forth. >> Sorry, quick question. So, we I don't know of any other projects that are comparable because we don't have very many for sale multif family. So, when you're looking at comps, what where are you looking? >> Mountain Brook. >> Thank you. Thank you for the question. >> Um, yeah. So, thank you very much for the question. Mountain Brook, that is that comp right now is proven to be comparable. It's proven to be very difficult for us. They have quite a low sales price. That's the $275 a square foot starting to do. >> Hey, quickly. Mountain Brooks Metro District. Yes. Right. >> Yeah. It's in Grand Valley. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, and that's that's the thing. They have a metro district and as a result of that they're able to offset a huge amount of their infrastructure costs and other costs and that's helping get their price down which is in turn unfortunately hurting our situation. >> Um so that's that's the comp. >> So in terms of owning blight um this is a very much a blighted site. We have three parcels. Two are vacant um former farmland essentially. one with uh five or six dilapidated buildings on it. Um we have a number of folks camping essentially daily on all the properties. Um the property is just north of the Dry Creek ditch as well or creek, excuse me. Um and there's a lot of folks camping down in there also. >> I didn't know we can camp down there. >> Well, yeah. Um and it's it's a real draw. It's a real It's very difficult for us and frankly for the city too, I think. Um, for a period of time this spring, we were really monitoring it and we were having five to seven police visitations every week. Sometimes we'd have more than one per day. Those same people, they just come back. Um, they dump trash everywhere. There's drug use happening. All kinds of bad stuff. Um, >> if I could just add to that too, it's not just the blight on the property itself. the blight conditions in the general area contribute to the challenges to develop this particular piece of property. So, it's not just the light on the property itself. Um Tony could probably speak more to this, but this is just a a breakdown of the uh blight study that was conducted by the city I think in 2024 and accepted in 2025 of the conditions blight conditions we have on our property. Um parcel D, which is one of the three parcels we have, has seven out of the nine blight characteristics. The other two have five. I think the only reason why D has more than the other two is because there's buildings on it which are not in great condition. Here's just some photos we've done collecting. That was a some drug use incident, I believe. Um we have trash being brought in by people carrying it and then I I've even heard of people backing trucks up and just dumping stuff on the property. Um, and then just to put this into context too, we have an active trespass affidavit. We've had it for the past two years roughly. Um, we put no trespassing signs up. They go missing pretty frequently. They don't really last more than a week. >> Um, here's some more. We had a some folks actually dig a cave inside of a dirt pile, >> which was a major issue. Um, they were putting the wean tubes up against the building. Here's some more of that. Somebody was camping in a dirt pile again. And then more stuff up against the building. >> Wow. >> Um, that's graffiti on what I believe is a city-owned access ramp down to Dry Creek. And then it's sort of hard to see just with the lighting, but there's a large pile of all kinds of stuff, trash and other things in that picture on the right down by the creek. >> Um, so inclusionary housing, our plan is to satisfy inclusionary housing via cash and loo. Um, just to put it in perspective too, since this is a for sale project, we're paying a much higher fee and move rate than for rent projects. For our project, I'll use a comparison of retreat because I know that's relevant to this board. Um, they they've paid $450,000 or will pay $450,000 in cash, which equates to roughly $1,700 a unit. We will pay 1.4 million, which is 14,000 per unit. Um, so in terms of benefits that the city and other entities receive, obviously for the city there's the inclusionary housing fees. Can you explain why the cash is so significantly different? That's our >> Yeah, >> we So the the um the rate when this project was approved for per finished square foot for for sale was $7.90 and then for rent it was $1.90 which has since been raised but there's still that discrepancy. Yes, sir. I normally don't get to ask this question directly to the developers. So, I'm going to ask now because I have the opportunity. Um, why pay the cash and blue instead of building the affordable housing on site? >> Yes. So, the affordable housing on site, we ran the numbers when we got involved with the project initially. Unfortunately, it would have cost well more than the 1.4 billion to do that. Um, yeah, that's far more cost. So would there be some I mean would you be open to exploring conversation to bring some more affordable if given tiff I think possibly on the cash and loo side but with our current plan I mean we entered into this project not having that in mind we've designed the entire site around having units of particular sizes and so forth so um it would be very difficult to um accommodate on-site, excuse me, deed restricted affordable. Um it would it'd be very very costly. And the fact of the matter too, given our current situation, I mean, we're essentially in the red after we would have a loan or something on this project and it would need to be offset a lot, I think, in order for it to work in terms of tiff and other things. >> Thank you, J. two two pieces of context just you mentioned it. Council has since had a conversation um with our housing director about the FRP and new structures and directed some mechanisms to help rebalance those hopefully to some degree whatever degree you can legally and otherwise. Um and can you go back to the slide or just your price points um your your your price points wise >> this one or >> Yeah, that one that fine. Um, yeah, I I understand you're not designated deed restricted affordable, but when we talk about naturally occurring affordable, this is it's not it's it's not in terms of our forale product, it's pretty close like we're talking about a price point that is excessive for a lot of folks that currently do not have that kind of so that I just wanted to add a sorry >> and and if I may too, just on that note, um, we you know, we're at $430,000 with these type one two measure units. I believe currently the city's destricted attainable max sales price for two bedrooms is 409,000. >> Um so we're fairly close. I mean within a couple% >> and that's for 18 units across the whole project. So I just I just would um the attainable housing for two bedrooms at 100% of AMI is for attached products is 309533 and for 120% of AMI for a twobedroom the top end is 381 678. So, you shared that range because that's usually what we define as attainable. Correct. >> That's a table. >> Um, and I do again put it up on the on the screen when we're we're done with the presentation. Um, so >> I'm sorry, did you say 97 units? >> Yes. >> Okay. So you would have to build 12 um affordable units >> or the cash or the cash. >> Um so the inclusionary housing fees, you know, that's 1.4 million. I I will also add that's three times just on a gross number basis what Retreat is providing. Um so it's I think that's would be pretty attractive to the city. Um the per fees, they're roughly $38,000 per unit. That's money that the city gets um crossing project sales tax. Um this is a typo. I had 25 years in there. That 5.7 million is sort of our projection of the additional sales tax revenue that the city get over a 23-year period which I believe is the remaining time left on the tiff clock. And then of course after the tiff period the full balance of the property tax goes back to all the taxing entities. Um so yeah that's that's our presentation. Uh we would very very humbly ask you all to please ask staff to negotiate with us to help us out on this project. We very much like to make it come to fruition. Um we would really like to deliver this to Walmart. We understand that there's a lack of for sale market rate, middle market attached housing, which we feel is we've heard is a priority from Pike Commission and others. Yes, sir. >> Thank you all for being here and thank you for being uh open to these questions. So, um one of the things that we've heard a lot is the construction defects. >> Yes. >> And one of the reasons why we don't see products like this is because of the city's construction defects lawsuit. >> How are you all getting around that? >> Well, there's unfortunately there's no real way to get around it. Um, you buy insurance which costs $20,000 per unit essentially. How much? >> 20,000. It's a it's called an OCIP OSP policy or a control insurance policy. It's essentially just a liability policy over and above any other liability policy we would have as a builder developer for construction defect action specifically against this project. And that's just that's the cost of the insurance itself. But to have that insurance sort of be in effect, there's also a few thousand per unit of inspection costs. We the insurance companies require us to almost have a licensed engineer out there every day on the project to see that everything is going right. So their files, so the files are documented well. I so I started my company Silver Development in Long Mountain in like 1994. So I've been a long time a part of the community. We're definitely outstay region. This is our this is our home even though I live border county just west um and it's a it's a big challenge for us and that affordable the affordable housing contribution 1.4 4 million over 97 units is a big challenge also. And we refer to the highest project number of times. That was how many? 400,000 or so. >> 450,000. >> 250,000 over 250 units. >> 265. >> 265 units. So, we had some real economic challenges to make this work, which is why we're here. We don't want to sell the property to somebody out of state or rent to own versus the active people in the market. We would love to do this, but this is a reality. >> Um, I want to note that we have about seven minutes left for this item on discussion. So, I just want to flag that for um the group here. We we I again also want to stress that because there was no information presented to this group in advance. and not asking anyone and and would I would personally vote against any direct action tonight. So I don't I think that was the expectation set with the presenters. So just wanted to clarify that. So seeing that um for I want to see if there are questions from others who have not yet asked yet before I come back to a few others. >> Yeah. As partially for staff, when did we change some rules regarding dry creek use as a waterway for that property? >> I don't know exactly how you >> how you define it the price to >> repairing. >> The repairing setback >> is it is it repairing? >> Yeah. So that was >> so that's ordinance. It's done ordinance that went into the SCES and that looked at that. This is actually one of the areas that we talked about in that process. >> I believe I can't remember the exact title, but I think this was post whenever that riparian setback went into effect because I know that in our pulary plat we had to move everything up north. I think to be 100 ft away from a high water marker. >> Commissioner, thank you. Um, just a quick question. Thanks for the res. >> I guess I'm looking at cardio. There you are, too. >> As low as possible. Um, we haven't really came with projection on that yet. Probably a couple hundred dollars a month. I think that's about the minimum you can do with a um common area community anymore like this for maintenance and insurance and various other things. I took a look just really quickly where you were presenting on other town homes that are currently on market in Walmart and with that type of unit everywhere between a two twobedroom three bath and a threebedroom three bath somewhere between 1,200 ft and 1700 almost 1,800 ft the range is between 150 and $385 a month. So just trying to have an understanding of what you're >> probably within that range. Um we're to be totally cand with you. It's probably too early stage for me to give you an accurate number on that. But I mean we would like to make it reasonable certainly because I know that's a big expense. >> But you have amenities that would have to be maintained outside of like general infrastructure that you >> Yeah. common areas essentially. We don't have like a pool or anything like that. >> Yeah. Park or pool or anything. just open space common areas and then some alleys, you know, there would be snow removal. Um, we need to figure out trash removal and things like that. >> Can I can I just clarify that particular matter? So, the open space is primarily rain gardens which is part of the drain system and also includes a drainage wall they have to build. So, that then would have to be maintained by the >> That's right. >> And this is that been one of the locked by the Hobby Lobby. that I'm just thinking there isn't outside of literal open space across that major thoroughare there wouldn't be a placement like walker >> the internal the turtle streets and the rain garden common areas and dra I mean the drainage fault will have grass on it so there will be a large area there you know to on the southern end of the property and beyond down into creek that's technically open. I mean, I don't know if the city allows people to go tab in there or not, but that would all be open space, so to speak, plus other internal areas within the site, >> but not recreation >> in terms of like a play structure or something like that. No, we just unfortunately have room for it for something like that. I'll just use example of a play structure. Um the rain garden, we're not allowed to put anything in there. We're not allowed to put one on top of the drainage wall either um because it's within the riparian area. Um there's al host of problems about really building any kind of play structure recreation facility in there. >> One of the other pieces we talked about just very very this group is around workforce housing. I'm just curious if you talked with any of the other organizations around partnerships to meet those significant for all. I think you were couching it when you were talking about the middle. Can I say middle? >> Yeah, we have not spoken with any of those groups, but I mean I I would think this would be an attractive price point for a lot of folks, workforce people. Um, and we'd be willing to talk to them, but I think at the price point we're at for new construction, reasonably priced attached housing in a walkable area, I think it's pretty I think it's very competitive to those folks. Yes. >> Great. Thank you, Commissioner Marcel. Then I have one last comment and then we're gonna move on from >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'll be fairly quick. I really appreciate the presentation and I appreciate the project. Um I think this is something that I've, you know, been a lot of us have been looking for. Um to the point that counter Mr. Chair's motion, I'm not going to make a motion, but I was prepared to. I So my question is actually for you, Mr. Chair, I think for staff as well. If the desire of this board theoretically was to move forward and ask, you know, for negotiating tiff agreements to come back to us just because I knew the laurel, what is that process look like? Because I'm hearing hesitancy from staff to some degree on on it and just to be I I could be misreading that completely. I'm not that right, but I am curious about what the process is moving forward if you're saying tonight you're not looking for direction or you don't want direction. >> Sure. Um I'll just clarify first. The reason I mostly uh would I'm saying that is because most of this information is brand new to everyone here and I would like staff to vet the information. >> If what my direction would be was please vet the information and come back to us. Is that >> that's great. We just were not trying to put you on the spot for anything. >> Sure. Okay. >> I would assume that would be kind of run for like when we get something in to take a look at it, make sure it's credible. And often what would happen is that we would have these negotiations that would happen and we would bring you an agreement um or we would come in or you know in an executive session and have a conversation depending on what it is. So um this is just a little bit flipped on its head because the developer was interested in having a conversation publicly. >> Cool. >> Yeah. So I think one of the chair's intents was is to get a feel of what the appetite is for the bar around the for sale product. So that was one goal and I think I'm thinking of next steps. I would like to see more of a breakdown of what that 3.2% gap truly is. When was the last time we did the financial gap analysis? I think that would be very useful information for us. And then the blind study was done 2024. Would we need to do another? >> So this is part of the existing urban renewal um area. And so we are um it the agreements that you did recently that are related to this would apply here for this parcels and that's why we would definitely want to um do some analysis of what that cap looks like based on um what the Hines project is projected to to both generate and receive and to there's already a negotiated agreement. Uh yeah, building on comm's point, there was the there's the for sale component of this obviously for consideration, but there's also the market rate affordable attainable discussion that I wanted to get a feel for with as well and and have that kind of conversation open. So, uh I think my my I guess just a quick pulse check nods or like show hands like uh would people like to see added information on this coming back? >> Great. I think I think we have a clear signal to to proceed there. Um I would appreciate when we bring that back also if we have an understanding of how this relates or doesn't relate to uh the housing authority property just south of the suits just southwest >> um just in terms of impacts on our operation on the housing authorities operations as well as >> probably not there's no airplane because of the separation of drive. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, thank you, uh, Andrew, John, Tony, appreciate your time. Thank you for joining us tonight. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Um, on the topic of special reports and presentations, I just want to note in your packet, you probably saw the river district arewide plan as um requested from our previous previous meeting in July. Um, that was included in your packet. There is no action or presentation on that tonight. that was just informational for people to familiarize themselves with that. Uh we are still working to schedule a presentation on that at a future meeting. Um and so we'll have more information on that. But now you have that for reference and if anyone has questions feel free to reach out to staff or myself. Um with that uh any notes from finance? >> Thank you Teresa. Um any other comments from commissioners? If just a quick question looking at staff, I have a couple questions that would be helpful for me from information whenever that group comes back. >> Can I just send it and then we'll either answer in the packet or we can answer and share with everybody. >> Thank you. >> Depending on what those questions >> Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Will we go to the commission? >> Vice Chair McGomery. >> I motion to adjourn. Second. There's been a motion from Commissioner McGillry to adjurnn and second. I heard Commissioner Dog Fering first. Um all in favor. >> Any opposed? Seeing none, >> you're returned. Thank you very much.