[0:00] We had a workshop, so we will make two. It is a special joint meeting on March 9, 2026. Let the records show that all of council in the mayor present, with Councilor Spirion and Councilor Viman joining us online, and there they are. Chair,

[0:23] don't worry, those just project to the owls. Great. I would like to record the show that our commissioners are present this morning. It's happening.

[0:32] Thank you.

[0:34] We have a consent calendar.

[0:36] Item A, facility lease agreement for start plus storage and

[0:39] Triggs.

[0:40] Item B, amend and restated affordable and workforce housing restriction

[0:44] templates.

[0:46] Item C, agreement with Jackson Hold Not Resort for start service.

[0:51] Any pamphlet or commissioner love to remove any items?

[0:55] Mr. Commissioner.

[0:56] Mr. Mayor, thank you.

[0:56] I'd like to remove item C, please.

[0:58] Yes. Any others?

[1:02] Not going to have a motion to do a through consent calendar item eight and b's.

[1:08] So it's sad.

[1:10] What should anybody tell her?

[1:11] Shepherds and my country.

[1:13] Regents. They call the comment should have done that first.

[1:17] Um, we're that one's coming off.

[1:19] Okay. So I'm it will be a bad later on. I don't see.

[1:24] Any comments on an A or a B? Any discussion by Councillor Femisham, I'd like to leave.

[1:30] Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye.

[1:33] Aye.

[1:35] Opposed? Motion passed unanimously.

[1:39] Thank you. Motion from Commissioner Mackers, second from Commissioner Garland.

[1:44] All in favor, please say aye.

[1:45] Aye.

[1:45] Opposed? Motion carries unanimously.

[1:49] Thank you.

[1:50] Thank you.

[1:51] Commissioner Crookes, I didn't see.

[1:55] I'm not reporting this.

[1:57] Well, no, you pulled it off.

[1:59] So, yeah, I was using that.

[2:00] How we went from fairly contentious issue,

[2:03] one that's on the consent agenda,

[2:04] I'd like to understand a little more about the nature

[2:06] of the contract with the duration of.

[2:10] Okay.

[2:11] I'm guessing that Mr. Toronto or.

[2:15] Our attorney.

[2:17] Could you please come up and.

[2:18] If

[2:27] you have to name me, it calls one of the mayor, Chair.

[2:31] Mr. Groves, the term of the agreement, it is a three-year agreement with the potential

[2:36] for two-year extensions.

[2:39] The levels of service and the payment structure is the things that have been passed agreement,

[2:45] so not substantially different, um, there, I don't know if that's helpful to start.

[2:54] So, it's just a continuation essentially of the previous agreement.

[2:57] For the most part, there haven't been many changes.

[3:02] We cleaned up a few different things, the Teton Build Association moved to a different

[3:06] agreement, so we pulled them out, took out some of the pass holders, things like that.

[3:10] But for the most part, the structure and the payment, including the exhibit, are generally

[3:16] structured the same.

[3:18] Thank you.

[3:19] Welcome.

[3:22] Councillor Garner.

[3:23] Thank you.

[3:24] Mr. Mayor.

[3:24] All right.

[3:25] Commissioner Mayor.

[3:26] No problem.

[3:27] I'll take out some of the past lawyers.

[3:29] Can you force that out for me please?

[3:30] Well, we just cleaned up some of the pastoral language.

[3:33] Thank you for the question and commissioner Garner.

[3:36] It's been through several iterations.

[3:37] I have to go back to find your exact answers.

[3:39] I'm happy to do that.

[3:41] In terms of the calculation of individuals in possession of the premium

[3:47] in the grand in the seventh day, those are mostly the same that we did clean up that language a little

[3:51] bit. Perhaps in the literature module remembers exactly, but it's pretty much, it's the same JMR

[4:00] employees for the most part. Correct. So the same ski pass holders, there's a discount for,

[4:06] well, they pay a discount of ski pass holders and for their employees misstated in previous exhibits,

[4:12] that's, I'm sorry, my Toronto graduate from start

[4:15] and getting used to the format list, sorry.

[4:17] And so they do, just for past agreements

[4:20] that have been in place and kept that same type

[4:22] of discount for pass holders.

[4:24] We did add two side rails in there that help start

[4:29] and NJHM are in the sense that they do pay

[4:32] for a portion of service that increases.

[4:35] And they also, every year there will be an increase

[4:38] based on employee wage rates

[4:40] because that's one of the biggest drivers, service costs, up to seven and a half percent,

[4:44] which is the amount of historical high for wage increases.

[4:48] So that guarantees that escalates where that was not in there before.

[4:51] So service state level, there's nothing to say that costs would go up, but it does say they

[4:56] will go up.

[4:57] And when you look at our TDP, our transit belt and plan, there is no planned or projected service

[5:04] this growth past 5% in the next five years.

[5:07] So capping their contributions at 7% service growth

[5:11] seemed like a risk-free cap to put on it.

[5:15] Thank you.

[5:16] Thank you for checking.

[5:18] Yeah, it was just, we answered some of the questions.

[5:21] Perhaps we could add some more nuanced things with the,

[5:24] we can talk about offline and some maybe,

[5:26] for sure, help sometime next.

[5:27] Who is?

[5:28] Yeah, welcome.

[5:28] Thank you very much.

[5:31] Any follow-up hosts?

[5:32] Yes.

[5:33] I'm sure.

[5:34] Thank you, Buzz, for helping us understand this.

[5:37] This is just with the J.H.M.R., what's the status of the agreement with TBA and why

[5:44] are we bifurcating this to—that was—so bifurcating is before my time for when I understand

[5:51] they pulled out of the agreement.

[5:52] I don't know what legalese is behind that.

[5:56] They do have a separate agreement for purchasing passes for their employees and that agreement

[6:01] was executed to start board approved it, start board approves one year contracts, and this is

[6:05] a multi year, so it comes to you all for approval. To start board approved it, they plot passes

[6:11] for last summer, they paint for their winter employees, and then come this June, their contract

[6:16] will be re-upped again. Or consider. Consider, yes. I can note just to add to that that the parties were

[6:24] I always buy for K did because they're two different to to see if they see any public comment

[6:32] on this item with that you know I'm not going to work with that's one more question I was

[6:41] trying to remember how the area two revenues fit in so I'm looking at it and we started with

[6:47] 3.3 million has the full cost of level of service but it looks like we deduct from that 500,000

[6:57] area to revenue and just kind of try to remember from the master plan for area to what that is

[7:06] specified for and why you put it in here this way. The area to fees are in section 5. They have

[7:13] been in the agreement since we put this together or the transit directors

[7:17] past and present have put this together in the last few years.

[7:21] And they are calculated as an average of the last five years of the real estate

[7:25] transfer in short term rental fee receipts, but they are capped at $500,000

[7:29] for their credit. And from what I understand historically,

[7:33] Talia's point, when you go back, the records that I have go back to about

[7:38] 2010-ish, as far as I can find, and that number

[7:42] fluctuates so much. Having this cap it kind of gives us again to you but also maybe a protection

[7:47] to others from going up and down so much. Right here, Stash.

[7:54] Any further questions?

[7:57] I'm sorry, I'm missing or I'm clubbing already. I'm just going to stop. Any other questions?

[8:05] Seeing none, I'll get now a public comment on item C. Please put the volume stage name for the record

[8:10] and please keep your comments at the commissioner's house.

[8:12] We're at the podium.

[8:13] Right there.

[8:14] Yeah, that's good.

[8:14] No, no, no, bother with my time, walk in.

[8:21] Thank you, Mayor Jordansson.

[8:22] Dr. Newkin councilors commission commissioners.

[8:25] My name is Jared Smith.

[8:26] I'm the pass board member of the start in the past year.

[8:30] Actually helped lead the negotiations and some other questions you're asking.

[8:35] be happy to answer if you wanted offline.

[8:38] The cautionary agreement is a very important funding mechanism for Stark.

[8:47] So I want to start with saying that I hope that you will approve the agreement today

[8:52] as drafted the reason and I'll explain the reasoning after I ask the second request.

[8:59] I hope that you'll add a perviso that the county county will revisit the level of taxpayer subsidy for Teton Village TDM program.

[9:06] As part of the county's ongoing review, staff by Candler, Windom and Dr. Charlotte Fry and others who are already tasked with this work.

[9:14] And I request that you have the policy discussion needed before the FY27 budget is approved in June.

[9:21] And this agreement applies to the current fiscal year, but also the two subsequent years.

[9:31] The reason I recommend approval of the agreement today is twofold.

[9:34] The agreement is essentially a renewal, as Leah mentioned, of the existing agreement

[9:38] that we help negotiate as the starter board in 2020-2021, approved in 2022.

[9:45] to the agreement allows for cocturing

[9:48] in this current fiscal year, 26,

[9:50] so does essential that we have it in place

[9:52] to provide budget certainty for the current year

[9:55] for both start and the mountain resort.

[9:57] It will result in approximately $500,000

[9:59] in start funding for the current year,

[10:01] and as a couple of minor changes that were mentioned.

[10:04] The agreement also allows either the mountain resort

[10:08] or start to revisit the agreement on an annual basis

[10:12] in April of each year.

[10:14] So approval today does not take away your ability to revisit the policy implications of

[10:19] the approval today.

[10:21] And so what I'd like is with that provisor that you would take a deeper dive into the

[10:25] cautionary agreement going forward.

[10:29] And a lot of this is underscored in my yes shot letter and my letter to you on the very

[10:47] We have been able to get housing for start seasonal drivers.

[10:52] We haven't put out service to record JMLID as already called for.

[10:57] And we have an expanded commuter service.

[10:59] And the reason is very simple lack of funding.

[11:03] So what I'm not asking in the review is for new revenue from the town of County.

[11:08] But I believe if you take a strict interpretation of the already in place TDM requirements of the 1998 master plan and you look at the spreadsheet that I prepared there using the same numbers that you're going to prove today apply a more strict interpretation of subsidies, you will result in $2 million in start funding that could be transferred and reallocated to other needed parts of the system.

[11:35] But so bottom line is please approve today with the proviso and then let's take the deep

[11:43] dive in the coming months as you approve the F1227 budget.

[11:47] And I think that with some stricter interpretation of better negotiations and I submit the good

[11:52] wrap it up.

[11:53] Anyway, I take ownership for the agreement you have before you leave because I was the

[11:59] lead negotiator on it, but I do believe it's time to revisit the policy implications

[12:03] behind it.

[12:04] Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment in the room or online using the raised hand feature?

[12:12] So now I'd bring it back to

[12:15] counsel and commission for motion under discussion.

[12:23] Yeah, Chairman. I am in support today, but I do dig it into it. I think looking at the strict definitions

[12:33] and strict black and white of the master plan, I think it is in the next year we're having a fresh look because I know that this year we are going to be pressed to come in fund priorities that have been out there before like continued service to the airport as well as trying to improve that service perhaps by extending it to Teton Village, which would be a benefit for Teton Village in the ski resort as well.

[12:58] So I'll support it today, just looking ahead, perhaps the bodies will take it up in the future and have a closer look at the

[13:08] Strict adherence to the actual TDM policies and the definitions in area two master plan as well

[13:17] Okay, is there a motion on the town side?

[13:20] I moved to improve the transit funding between the town of Jackson, Teton County and Jackson,

[13:27] but I'm not reserved as presented on the second motion.

[13:30] Maybe a counter-sactor or a secondary counter.

[13:32] We can any discussion from either the commission or the county.

[13:37] Right. Yeah.

[13:38] That's just to build on the public comments.

[13:43] We should look at this point.

[13:45] Yeah, if there's a way for the public to be better served by looking at how we're funding

[13:51] things, certainly that's something we're exploring.

[13:56] So I would hope that as we, our organizations take a look at this couple of months between

[14:03] now when we get final budget, we will pick a closer look at the point that was raised in public

[14:08] health.

[14:09] Thank you.

[14:11] Any other comments?

[14:13] We're seeing none. All those in favor? Please say aye.

[14:16] Aye.

[14:18] Opposed, motion passed unanimously.

[14:20] Motion for the committee.

[14:22] Same motion.

[14:23] Thank you.

[14:25] We have motion from Commissioner Gardner, second from Commissioner Carlin.

[14:28] All in favor.

[14:29] Aye.

[14:30] Opposed, then motion carries.

[14:32] Thank you.

[14:33] This is along the discussion and action items.

[14:36] I am a native between the land of portable workforce housing development, Ms. Norton is here

[14:43] and I know there's a team behind her as well as the other knowledge members.

[14:49] We've all seen a lot of information on this process. I just want to make a couple of comments

[14:53] and set up my expectations for this afternoon. This is a project that all of us know

[15:00] All too well that you've been looking on for a very long time over a couple of years now. And this isn't either across it has been from the beginning. And this year's May decisions along the way to move this process forward by majorities of board. This is nearing very close to the end. The last one of the series of discussions with the staff is asking us for input in order for them to finalize these agreements.

[15:27] So my expectation today is that we're going to listen to presentation by staff and then

[15:34] Rose. I'm expecting that to be 20 to 25 minutes. That presentation is touching on many

[15:39] of the discussion we've been having for the last couple of weeks. And if the staff's been

[15:44] working on for the last couple of months, I will then open for public comment and then bring

[15:49] it back to Council permission to go through the seven key questions. We go through them individually.

[15:55] We'll have ample time at that point to ask questions to go back and forth between with each other as well as

[16:02] staff

[16:05] If and then we have motion very suggestive motion there may be some work persons to that

[16:11] That is how I would like that's what I'm looking to playing out this afternoon

[16:16] Dear process question

[16:17] And I do commit no commission or comment you would.

[16:22] Yeah, my brother's question is with respect to the operation of the recreational vehicle park this summer.

[16:30] It's not one of the seven key questions. There are people here.

[16:34] I'm interested in that.

[16:36] And I would love it if we could just get a quick sense of the council and commission.

[16:40] and what would we want that to happen,

[16:43] what would we want that to be an operation,

[16:45] and if there are any legal impediments

[16:47] that make that impossible,

[16:49] my I'll just admit that I think it's quite possible

[16:53] and that there's no likely scenario

[16:55] out of our discussions later have to move

[16:58] that would be included happen.

[17:00] And so I'd like to give a signal to staff

[17:04] and to the operator that we want to make this work.

[17:06] And if they have to adjust the season of operation

[17:08] or fees or something that stay within our letters,

[17:12] limits, then let's play that game and win.

[17:15] Thank you, Commissioner Curmer and Tom.

[17:18] I'd like us to do that at the end of the meeting.

[17:20] We'll try to hold some space for that.

[17:21] I think the priority right now is to get through

[17:23] these points.

[17:25] I agree that it's a significant problem.

[17:29] No, it's not for good.

[17:31] I have a more basic question,

[17:33] which was to just ask the status,

[17:34] but if you can't grab the summer item, I...

[17:37] I look at it as kind of a threshold issue, but if you want further at the end, that's your discussion.

[17:42] Yeah, and I will definitely try to keep some space available for that.

[17:47] Anything else?

[17:49] Okay, I expect thank you very much for being here, Ms. Norton.

[17:54] Again, we share with us what you have here.

[17:58] I knew this is definitely food.

[18:02] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council, Mr. Chair, Commission, April

[18:07] Dorton Housing Director. We are gathered here today to talk

[18:10] about the future affordable workforce housing neighborhood

[18:13] located at 90 Virginia Lane. As you all know, 90 Virginia

[18:17] Lane was purchased by the Housing Authority in 2023.

[18:21] You all directed and authorized the Housing Authority to purchase

[18:23] this property. It is 5.15 acres located in the Midtown

[18:28] neighborhood and it is zoned in H1 zoning which is a multi-family zoning district. Today we're

[18:36] asking you all seven questions that are related to funding, phasing and oversight of the project

[18:43] but before we do that I kind of want to set the table a bit for all of us. We have our guiding

[18:48] policy documents, the comprehensive plan that was approved in 2012 and updated in 2020 and the

[18:54] workforce housing action plan that was approved in 2015.

[18:57] The workforce housing action plan directs us to purchase land

[19:01] that is appropriately zoned for housing,

[19:03] just like the New Virginia Lane,

[19:05] and then to partner with the private sector

[19:06] to develop affordable workforce housing on that land.

[19:09] The workforce housing action plan also tells us

[19:11] to work on preserving affordable workforce housing

[19:14] that exists today in our community.

[19:17] The comprehensive plan sets forth the vision of our community

[19:20] that is predicated on three common values.

[19:23] Ecosystem Stewardship, Growth Management, and Quality of Life.

[19:28] Together, we're going to all three of these common values because if we have two, but

[19:33] not the other, the strength of our, these are strength of a rope and the rope is no longer

[19:38] strong.

[19:39] While affordable workforce housing is generally associated with the third common value,

[19:44] Quality of Life, it also helps us achieve our other two common values.

[19:48] Because of some stewardship, one of our goals is to locate future residential growth and complete neighborhoods.

[19:56] 60-40 is that goal, so 60% located in complete neighborhoods.

[20:00] 90 Virginia and Lane is added to 211 permanent protected homes in a complete neighborhood, which is the Midtown neighborhood in Jackson.

[20:08] Our comp plan also tells us that we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

[20:13] 90 Virginia Lane is locating homes that are close to jobs, schools, services, outdoor

[20:19] recreation, et cetera, helping us reduce our service travel and the greenhouse gas emissions

[20:25] from that type of travel.

[20:27] Our company talks about growth management and we talk about it in three ways, amount, location

[20:32] type.

[20:33] A amount is the buildout cap.

[20:36] In this graph, you can see that the pink are the remaining units to be assigned.

[20:40] 90% in lane is using those pool units for 100% permanently protected homes for our workforce.

[20:46] That's a great thing. We'd rather see those pool units used for permanently protected homes

[20:51] versus free market homes. Location. We are locating this housing in a complete neighborhood.

[20:59] This is a place that is long been identified for affordable workforce housing because of its location

[21:04] close to again, jobs, schools, amenities, transit, outdoor recreation, etc. And then again, the type.

[21:11] We are building permanently protected units, not market-rate units.

[21:17] Quality of life, the comprehensive plans, that's a minimum goal of 65% resident workforce.

[21:23] We want 65% of our workforce to live locally. We want this because we want folks

[21:27] who will volunteer when they're not at work. We want the lights to be on and on neighborhoods

[21:32] instead of dark windows. We want to stay able to task base. We are very interested in generational continuity and having a resident workforce helps us meet our other components of Planckles.

[21:46] In 2022, we did a housing needs assessment, but housing needs assessments said that we needed 2000 below market homes to maintain our 60% resident workforce.

[21:55] We need those homes because of a healthy job growth and because of our retiring workforce.

[22:15] So the folks who are retiring, they're selling their homes, they're likely not being sold to the people replacing them at work.

[22:22] Or if they're retiring, they're no longer a member of the workforce, they're obviously very valuable to our community but they're no longer part of that resident workforce.

[22:30] course.

[22:31] Helms are gotten very, very expensive.

[22:35] Okay?

[22:36] Um, this chart should be, should a sound for you.

[22:39] Um, it has always been really expensive to live in Jackson.

[22:41] And you hear people say that all the time.

[22:43] Jackson's always been expensive.

[22:44] In 2019, we experienced a step change in the past to live here.

[22:50] Um, you could see how this graph, the red line, is the median sale price.

[22:54] For a long time, the median sale price was available to people who were earning

[22:58] 60-70 percent in the top 60-70 percent—sorry, I'm saying that opposite—the top 30-40 percent

[23:07] of households in the valley. The median self-priced is available to be top 5 percent of earners.

[23:13] So it's not another way. Those are unaffordable to 95 percent of the people in our community.

[23:19] In addition to that, we're seeing our older renter housing staff be replaced by upscaled

[23:28] old, nicer homes. You know, the story used to go single person moves here. They come

[23:33] for a summer, but stay for a lifetime. That's my story. I lived in this house on the

[23:38] last 2005 at a $450 a month in East Jackson to live in one of the three bedrooms in that

[23:44] home. That home was scraped. And in 2025, it was listed on Zillow for $20,000 a month. That's

[23:50] $5,000 a bedroom.

[23:55] And it's no, it's no wonder our population grew. It is waning and we're

[23:59] older. The story that people, again, young people used to move here. They were single. They met

[24:05] their partner. They coupled up. They got a dog or a cat. And then they had children. It is

[24:09] really, really hard for people to do that. The percent of 25 to 35 year olds who are staying in this

[24:14] community is going down because of the cost of living. The major driver of that cost of living

[24:19] increase is the cost of housing. So what do we got today? Existing affordable workforce housing

[24:26] to stock. Oh, excuse me. We have 1,756 homes. 64% of those are rental. 36% of those are ownership.

[24:36] They're primarily one, two, and three-bedroom homes. The one-bedrooms are predominantly

[24:41] rentals. The two-bedrooms are split between, evenly between ownership and rental,

[24:46] and the three-bedrooms are predominantly ownership. We look at our pipeline, not including

[24:52] 90 Virginia Lane. We see we have 54% of the homes are ownership and 46% of the homes are rental.

[25:00] When we look at just the rental and I think this is really interesting. Of those 366 rental

[25:05] loans, 181 of those are being built by employers. That includes the school district, the hospital,

[25:12] the Presbyterian church, Hocking Guest Ranch, Savior of Aladdin Spa, and three Creek Ranch. So over half

[25:18] of those workforce, the restricted homes are employer-owned and developed units.

[25:25] On the other side, for the workforce ownership units, most of these are located in the

[25:29] new neighborhood in New Orleans, South Park, and are not attached to any specific employer.

[25:34] But one employer who is building ownership product is floor valley energy.

[25:40] So we add in 90 Virginia lane. We see that we have now 52% our rental 48% are ownership.

[25:48] and many Virginia lanes with that lighter color, the blue and orange.

[25:53] Ninety Virginia lane has 221 homes, 161 rental homes, 64 sale homes.

[25:59] You put it all together because I know people are interested in this.

[26:02] This is existing plus the future pipeline plus 90 Virginia lane.

[26:06] You see, we're still predominantly one, two, and three bedroom homes

[26:09] with a significant number of units that are unknown and bedroom size.

[26:13] Again, those are those known South Park units.

[26:15] We can make some assumptions about who's building

[26:18] those how does that for humanity typically builds two and three bedroom homes for sale for households

[26:22] earning less than 80% of median income and the housing trust typically builds one two and three

[26:27] bedroom homes for sale for households earning less than about 140% of median income.

[26:34] Today we have seven questions in front of you and we're asking you about funding,

[26:38] phasing and oversight to ensure that both phases of this development are built and that our

[26:46] There are lots of new things that we've been working on.

[26:49] A couple of the highlights include an increase

[26:51] to the ground lease fee,

[26:53] the addition of compliance monitoring fee,

[26:55] fees at transfer, refinance and sale,

[26:57] reimbursement of pre-development expenses,

[26:59] purchase options rights and first rates of refusal,

[27:02] consent rights and removal rights for cause.

[27:07] These are the seven questions I'll be running through now.

[27:11] The first question is which phase

[27:13] rental or ownership should be built first?

[27:15] staff recommend the building the rental phase first once you design and entitlements for

[27:20] all phases of the project are complete. This delivers 161 homes quickly, which is the greatest

[27:27] immediate impact for our workers and their families. Building one also includes the share

[27:34] of entities for the site that will benefit the entire campus, both the 4-Sale and the 4-Minute

[27:39] projects. And then the interior location of Building One supports sufficient staging

[27:44] and infrastructure sequencing.

[27:47] The cons, as with any phase project,

[27:50] the second phase could be delayed,

[27:52] could not be completed,

[27:54] it could be materially changed due to market forces,

[27:57] politics, or other unforeseen conditions.

[28:02] The second question is,

[28:03] how do we work to ensure that both phases are built?

[28:06] The staff's initial recommendation

[28:08] was to build building one first

[28:11] and then go to building four, which are condos

[28:14] and move east to west on the site.

[28:16] Penrose responded and said we can't do this

[28:18] because our leaders and investors will not allow

[28:20] the two phases to be independent,

[28:23] interdependent because completing the rental project

[28:25] generates the cash flow that we need

[28:27] to support operations and maintenance.

[28:30] The site and building the rental project ensures

[28:33] that management plan for the whole campus

[28:37] is in place prior to the condo sales and it helps to

[28:39] the right size, the H-O-A fees.

[28:42] Finderos said we can't commit to a developer being

[28:45] an active exceed 4%, but the fee is paid incrementally

[28:49] so that it's performance-based.

[28:51] That prior to beginning construction of the rental project,

[28:55] they will entitle and design the entire site,

[28:58] and they'll show they have financing

[28:59] for both phases of the project.

[29:03] In a worst-case scenario, the housing authority,

[29:06] and in worst cases, they build the rental project,

[29:09] but don't love the ownership project or they start the rental project and the world turns upside down

[29:13] and they don't finish the rental project. The housing authority will still own the land

[29:17] and maintain our status as the groundless aware. We will own the entitlements in the designs

[29:23] for both phases and we will own an interest in the rental project as a special limited partner.

[29:31] The next few questions are about funding. Right now the public funding is anticipated to be about

[29:36] 28% of its total sources for the project.

[29:40] When you think about that in the context of other developments that we've done, it is in

[29:44] line with how much we, the amount that we contributed to the growth base three, 174 North

[29:49] King and Johnson Street Apartments.

[29:52] It is more than what we contributed to Marcel Kondo's and Kelly DeCois Kondo, so they're both

[29:56] of 100% workforce developments,

[29:59] black paper departments,

[30:00] Section 15, the Court of the Senate will be receiving federal funding and significantly less than

[30:03] what we contributed to Red Ministry rentals. On a per unit basis, we're putting in a little

[30:09] under $220,000 per home. Again, contextualizing that with other developments we've done, and

[30:16] I put in the parent medical, I've adjusted for inflation.

[30:21] We are in line, excuse me, less than red ministry rentals,

[30:26] 174 North King and Jackson Street apartments.

[30:29] And two, 17 is higher than the road base three,

[30:34] Marcell condos, Kelly Quiz condos, and flat-free apartments.

[30:38] So we have two questions on funding.

[30:40] The first is when should the first 10 million be contributed?

[30:43] You all remember that you have committed to investing $10 million in this project already.

[30:50] Staff are recommending that you invest that $10 million to fund the horizontal

[30:54] infrastructure on a reimbursement basis. After the LLC is closed on the financing that's

[30:59] necessary to build the rental project, and they've received all entitlements necessary for all phases

[31:04] of the project. Right now that horizontal infrastructure phase is expected to cost $8.5 million,

[31:10] dollars which would leave a balance of 1.5 million dollars and that's in the initial 10.

[31:16] We recommend that whatever the balance is that those funds be loaned into the rental project

[31:23] at 50% completion of the rental project and then your staff report and on the screen there's

[31:27] some proposed loan terms. The second question around funding is will the talent and county

[31:33] contribute the second 10 million? The staff recommendation was that the talent and county

[31:38] today, commit to investing in employee housing opportunities at the site, equal to 10 million

[31:44] dollars, and that you all direct the housing authority to pursue the saleist, coordinate

[31:48] bonds to impact investors and local employers. Right now, there's a 10 million dollar gap

[31:54] and 5 million on the board right side and 5 million on the ownership side. So, Pinterest is

[31:59] seeking a commitment for 5 million on the rental side and 5 million on the ownership side.

[32:03] The employee housing opportunities include rights of first rental, $5,000,000 would equal

[32:12] 18 first rights of rental in this development across one, two, and three bedroom homes

[32:18] at all of the affordability levels.

[32:20] On the workforce kind of pre-purchased side, $5,000,000 would net you five to nine homes depending

[32:26] depending on the unit size that you all deter and you want to buy.

[32:34] If you do choose to buy workforce kind of, or pre-purchase those, that does reduce the

[32:39] ownership percentage, the low bit target, and the RFP.

[32:45] Next question.

[32:46] So, that will ignore any secure, special limited partner interests.

[32:49] This is an easy one.

[32:50] We say, wholeheartedly and badly, yes.

[32:54] We should absolutely do this.

[32:56] And it gets us, again, a number of rights that we are very interested in, including consent

[33:02] rights, removal rights for costs, eligibility for tax exemption, purchase options, right

[33:08] of first refusal, rights to receive a transfer fee, for a refinance fee, rights to implement

[33:15] resident services in the establishes of compliance monitoring fee.

[33:20] The next question, should the housing authority participate in the sub-developer?

[33:25] And your staff report, it said that the staff recommended that we do this.

[33:29] I think I've had conversations with all of you since then and recognize that as a massive

[33:33] policy change from the housing action plan.

[33:36] The housing action plan to remind everyone and directed us to purchase land into partners

[33:40] so that we are not in the role of a developer.

[33:43] The reason we were interested in the subdeveloper role is really to secure reimbursement of our pre-development expenses and a fee that's associated with that.

[33:55] We've discussed with pin rows, securing reimbursement of the pre-development expenses and a special limited partner fee through the SLP role in lieu of the subdeveloper role.

[34:06] So we are comfortable in moving off of that staff recommendation.

[34:11] The last one should be affordability begins to be changed.

[34:14] We are recommending that you change the affordability bands as follows.

[34:18] So less than 80% stays the same, 80 to 120% split into two and 120 to 160 are split into

[34:24] two.

[34:25] Functionally, what that does on the less than 80 nothing changes for the 80 to 100% and then

[34:32] 120 to 140% there's no impact to their rent rates and the sales prices are actually 10%

[34:38] lower than they would be today. For the 100 to 120 and the 140 to 160, the rent impacts

[34:44] are an increase of 20 percent because it's set at the low end of the income range

[34:48] and the sales prices would be 10 percent higher because they're set at the middle of the income range.

[34:55] Sweating is a part allows for more precise underwriting. It also helps reduce the funding gap.

[35:01] It provides better sales and rent targeting and it aligns with a recommended change to the

[35:07] housing rules that you all will see from the housing department later this year.

[35:12] Con deviates from our current structure.

[35:15] With that, oh, and then this is how the change effect in the unit mix.

[35:20] I have this question. Essentially, we are just splitting the 80 to 120

[35:24] half goes to 80 to 100, half go to 100 to 120.

[35:28] Same, same application for the 120 to 160.

[35:33] This is a suggested motion.

[35:35] There's some next steps that were in your presentation that include directing staff to

[35:40] work with pinrows to draft the suite of documents, to bring back to you all for consideration,

[35:46] and then there were some other policy questions that I was asked to include.

[35:50] One was removing the less than 80% for sale condos, and the other was including a preference

[35:56] for critical service providers,

[35:58] solicitor staff, senior center staff,

[36:00] child care workers, medical workers,

[36:02] federal, state, and local government employees.

[36:05] So those are here and available for discussion.

[36:08] That's it in my presentation,

[36:10] and I think this, I'm handing it over to

[36:14] the panelists.

[36:15] Thank you.

[36:20] Cool.

[36:21] Yeah, you have to get out of this.

[36:27] You can introduce yourself.

[36:29] I'm going to stand.

[36:31] Hopefully that's okay.

[36:32] everyone. Thank you all so much for having us here today. By the way of introduction, I'm Shannon

[36:39] Cox Baker. I'm the regional vice president for Penrose. I'm going to have a few slides if you

[36:48] bear with me. So now I answer your questions. I bless them.

[37:27] I really appreciate April walking

[37:29] through a very comprehensive overview of why we're here today. It's been two and a half years,

[37:36] And I don't think we can repeat enough, the reason why we're all here, right?

[37:40] I mean, communities across the country are all facing the state fundamental challenge,

[37:45] where we've got the people who work in our communities really struggling to afford to live here.

[37:50] So that is why we're here, and that's why Pedro says the work we do,

[37:54] we're in 18 states, and we see this challenge all across the country.

[38:00] And you know, at the risk of being repetitive, it's been a while since we've had a chance

[38:05] So really remind you why we are here and why we continue to show up and collaborate and work with your team.

[38:14] You know, Penrose is really one of the top affordable housing involved version of the country.

[38:20] We have a five plus year decade, excuse me, five plus decade track record of doing this work all across the country.

[38:27] and we've really successfully developed tens of thousands of units and our

[38:32] reputation has really built on our ability to do that well to live our

[38:36] projects. On schedule and on budget, we create architecturally profitable

[38:41] communities that are integrated into all of our neighborhoods where we live. One

[38:46] thing you might not know about Penrose is that in over 50 years of doing this work we've

[38:50] never not once completed development, not once. So Penrose is here to partner with

[38:57] you all. In many respects, though, I think the one thing where we really add a tremendous

[39:02] amount of value to this project is that we're financially standing behind it. We've invested

[39:08] over half a million dollars today in pre-development and upon approval and execution of the development

[39:15] agreement, we're going to invest another $2 million before we even pull a permanent insert

[39:19] construction. We're also securing over a hundred million dollars in conventional debt and private

[39:25] equity. And we're guaranteeing over $150 million in all types of different financial guarantee.

[39:34] So I'm sure this project is not just the one scheduled on budget that's built for the

[39:38] specifications that you all require. Yes. So we have a lot of skin in the game and a really

[39:44] strong incentive to get this development completed. And I just want to apologize and say you all

[39:50] really deserve a lot of credit for getting us where we are today. And no, not all of you

[39:55] were here at the time the site was purchased but you've continued to show up and

[40:00] shoulder a lot of the responsibility and the accountability for bringing this

[40:04] project forward. As has your staff, I mean there's been a tremendous amount of

[40:08] work analysis and negotiation and collaboration and consensus building that's

[40:12] gone on behind the scenes and I just want to pause and acknowledge that and

[40:17] thank you all for the work that you've done to get us here. This is the site plan

[40:22] that we brought forward to you last May. And we requested it at a time and received your support

[40:27] to cost share on schematic design so that we could get to a more accurate cost estimate.

[40:33] Now that was a very important milestone in this project. Nothing about the site plan has changed

[40:38] since that time. The unit makes, the AMI makes, the bedroom makes, the site plan,

[40:44] everything has stayed the same and I think we have a lot to show for the work we've done to date.

[40:48] and the fact that we're still here presenting 221 homes for development, I think is a real

[40:55] testament to the commitment that's been made. And the benefits of the community are really

[40:59] material. I mean, as April mentioned, right? We're building homes for households earning a

[41:04] range of incomes. And we're building homes for households of various different sizes, shapes

[41:10] and sizes, and coming from all different walks of life. I mean, these are the young professionals

[41:14] who are moving here for the first time.

[41:16] These are the seniors who are downsizing

[41:19] but want to stay in the community.

[41:21] These are single parent households.

[41:23] These are households that are expanding children.

[41:26] These are for the essential workers

[41:27] who really want to cut their commute

[41:29] and live closer to where they work.

[41:32] There's not really a one-size-fits-all household in Jackson.

[41:35] And so I think this project is going a long way

[41:37] to really trying to serve a broad swath of the population.

[41:43] Over the last few years, we've talked to a lot of employers, and what we have heard

[41:47] is that housing affordability is consistently a top barrier to workforce retention.

[41:53] So spanning this housing supply, this development is really supporting local businesses in

[41:58] any way, and it's really contributing, I think, to the county's economic vitality.

[42:04] The project, too, I know, I appreciate this is extraordinary for Jackson, right?

[42:09] This is big.

[42:10] So a lot of densities, a lot of units, a lot, a lot to kind of hold in your mind of how

[42:15] this RV park is going to turn into 211 new homes.

[42:19] But I think what's so exciting to us is that we've really been thinking about this development

[42:24] as a campus and really trying to approach it cohesively and think about how you can have

[42:29] renters and owners all living in one neighborhood as scale and as density and sharing in those

[42:35] the same common area, amenity, sharing in that open space,

[42:39] now engaging with each other, interacting with each other.

[42:42] This is not common.

[42:45] You don't see a lot of communities in the country

[42:47] where you've got this mix of household types.

[42:51] I think also another important thing to point out

[42:54] is it's really studying a new bar for multi-modal transportation.

[42:59] This site buys nature of its location,

[43:01] provides extraordinary access.

[43:03] and it's an opportunity for people to get out of their cars and walk and buy it and take the bus.

[43:08] We've been working very thoughtfully and consistently in the staff to really elevate the TMS strategy

[43:14] so we're implementing here. So I think there's going to be a lot of this project that I'll serve

[43:18] as a model for future developments to come. This isn't a speculative development. It's really intended

[43:24] to be long term. It's going to be professionally managed and owned and operated by Peneras for many,

[43:31] many years, locally decades, but we have really been working to with community-based

[43:36] wonders and local investors who really care about Jackson, who live here, who

[43:42] work here, who are invested here, who really want to see this project be a success.

[43:50] So we're here today with really two primary objectives. We want to address any

[43:55] questions you have. We want to say, as long as you'll have us, to ensure that we

[44:00] we can finalize our negotiations with staff

[44:02] on the development bringer.

[44:04] And then we are requesting your support

[44:06] for an additional $10 million in order to advance

[44:09] the project forward.

[44:11] So your affirmation of these two requests

[44:13] will provide us with the assurance we need

[44:15] to continue to invest, not just our readout and capital,

[44:18] but our time and our expertise in the design

[44:21] and the title and effort that stands between us today

[44:24] and the groundbreaking.

[44:34] As I mentioned before, a lot of work is going into ensuring

[44:37] that the town county's published investment in this project is protected. Again, a lot of work has

[44:43] happened since last May. The decision right from the outset that you all made to Brownlee's

[44:49] site, I think it was very critical, right? That really shows that this is a public asset,

[44:53] and it's going to be a public asset and perpetuity. But there has been a lot of work today on really

[44:59] Let me try and get a little bit of...

[45:00] We put some parameters around what the housing authorities will be as a special limited partner. And we did not object to that at all. This is very reasonable. It's committed with all of the partnerships we have with housing authorities. This is what our partnership is about. And so we're very much in support of that. And then in addition to the $10 million request, we've been working with staff to really figure out what other considerations need to be tied to that.

[45:26] So just the conversation around rights of personal or being able to purchase condos, that's

[45:34] just an added benefit to the work person community.

[45:40] So here's our schedule.

[45:41] It's a little hard to read from the screen, but I think you can take away from this that there's

[45:46] a lot of work that we have to do between hearing and groundbreaking.

[45:49] And this housing shortage that you are facing, it's not going to correct itself without intentional

[45:54] action.

[45:56] And like all of you as developers, we're in the business of making decisions, right?

[46:02] That's what we do every day.

[46:03] We approach every development that we do through the lens of how do we make calculated decisions

[46:09] with rigor, speed, and a really defined outcome.

[46:13] And the one thing that we don't have, and you all don't have either, is just 100% certainty on what this deal is going to look like at the end of the day.

[46:21] So we're not letting that stand in our way, right?

[46:25] The inability to see the future, you know,

[46:27] we just go back to what we do well

[46:29] and that's making decisions.

[46:31] So development's hard, it's okay to be afraid,

[46:35] but it's really important that we be fearless.

[46:38] And I think there's a lot of fear of the people

[46:40] in this room who have really stood up for this project

[46:43] and really want to see this workforce

[46:45] and this community have a safe and affordable place for us

[46:48] that we can, you know, live their lives with agency and contribute to the community.

[46:54] So I'll end there.

[46:56] Thank you all so much for your leadership and happening in certain questions.

[46:59] Yeah, thank you. Don't go far. Don't be questions.

[47:02] So I have one.

[47:04] Yeah, I'm open for public comment. If you're in the room, please come to the podium,

[47:08] stitch your name for the record. Please keep your comment. It's three minutes or less.

[47:11] If you're online, I already see the one that's getting ahead of the game.

[47:15] That's great. Please use the raised hand feature.

[47:18] There's no reason to wait.

[47:20] You don't need to be the first or the last.

[47:22] Just be set in line and let's hear it from you.

[47:25] May this be really quick.

[47:27] There we go.

[47:37] Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Mr. Mayor,

[47:40] missionaries, town councilors, president on screen.

[47:44] Instead, my name is Bob Wise.

[47:46] I live in Jackson.

[47:49] I speak today to support the Virginia project.

[47:53] I will not comment on specific deal points,

[47:55] but I trust in selected officials you will work them out.

[47:59] I do want to comment about community.

[48:02] The Virginia value proposition is about community,

[48:06] our sense of community,

[48:07] I will responsibly towards our community.

[48:10] Today, community is threatened

[48:12] when our neighbors are threatened by immigration enforcement.

[48:15] Community is threatened when housing for all is insufficient.

[48:19] Community is threatened by front page articles

[48:21] and national newspapers about wealth disparity.

[48:24] community is threatened when local control over housing policy is eroded or lost.

[48:30] Instead, we know here how community is strengthened and built, literally with the Virginia Project.

[48:37] My faith tradition has taught me about the importance of community with these simple but profound senses.

[48:43] If I'm not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?

[48:51] These are three distinct but interlocking questions. My faith is

[48:54] contemplating on each other deliberately, building community.

[48:59] If I'm not for myself who will be for me, this is a declaration of self-responsibility

[49:03] itself worth. This is not about selfishness. It's the recognition that in today's

[49:08] meetings context, it recognizes property rights, individual rights, personal

[49:13] responsibility, and your individual duty as an elected official.

[49:17] But I'm only for myself with am I a life this purely for himself is ultimately hollow it asked what am I not what do I have to have community to build community we must pose the question would is beyond ourselves and ask what are we here today for today the answer is to help other slide shelter the answer is the Virginia project and three if not now when it's about urgency the teaching delivers a shock with you to procrastinate.

[49:47] and moral passivity. Don't wait until conditions are perfect. Don't delay acts of goodness.

[49:53] The present moment is the only place where action is actually possible. When,

[49:58] implies there may be no later. Time is not infinite. Waiting is itself the choice.

[50:04] Your support for the Virginia project is needed now, not later. The proposed deal is complicated.

[50:10] You have spent much time on it, deliberating with great care and thought, pushing to get the best

[50:16] for the community. But building community also requires urgency.

[50:22] Today, move the Virginia Project vote. Thank you.

[50:26] Thank you.

[50:28] That's a very lining up, but very much appreciate that.

[50:32] Hi, everybody. My name is Ariel Cousinus.

[50:34] I am a 12-year resident of Teton County, Wyoming,

[50:37] and I am here to express my support for the integrated diverse neighborhood

[50:40] at 90 Virginia Lane. I'm assuming you all saw the recent New York Times

[50:44] article about Jackson Wyoming and our extreme wealth inequity. I don't want to get too far into

[50:49] the weeds, but I did find this quote particularly relevant to today's conversation.

[50:53] Tea time counting has long had the highest wealth inequity in the country, but that disparity has

[50:57] escalated sharply since 2017. The counties top 1% of households now have an estimated average annual

[51:04] income of about 35 million. 221 times what the bottom 99% is making. The average single family home

[51:12] price last year pushed past $7 million. The result has been a critical housing shortage for anyone

[51:17] who is not wealthy. Locals have been asking you to address this housing shortage and this inequity

[51:22] for years, which this bet valid of 2022 is just one example, but it proves because we are struggling.

[51:28] As our left is, I trust you have already taken the time to know our stories,

[51:32] of moving endlessly, of living out of cars, of delaying or sacrificing starting our families,

[51:37] of shutting our businesses, spending two-thirds more of our income on rent,

[51:40] in a commuting hours from places like Drake's action,

[51:44] Pondale, Acton, and Ingrid's voice.

[51:46] And maybe, and maybe most satisfiatingly,

[51:49] of being forced to amend their lives and leave.

[51:52] I personally am looking ahead at his son around the road,

[51:54] after finding out via a brief onset that had emailed last week

[51:57] that I would be losing my rental housing once again.

[52:00] I am not sure I will be able to afford to come back financially

[52:03] or emotionally, even though this is the only place

[52:05] I've ever lived, worked, volunteered, celebrated milestones,

[52:09] and more losses for over the past dozen years.

[52:13] It will not acknowledge this reality both in this meeting

[52:15] and also in that same New York Times article.

[52:18] I'm sure I'm just that while we've added 4,300 jobs

[52:21] in the last decade, we've only added 300 euro residents.

[52:25] That should concern us deeply,

[52:27] anger us and inspire us to take significant and immediate action,

[52:31] because I want to stay here in my place and remind people

[52:34] year round and long-term.

[52:36] A version of the variety of unit types from single bedrooms for the young professionals

[52:41] are myself who have already just wants to stop space to cover own after years being

[52:45] drained by roommate shuffles and her buckles to ground floor ADU compliant units for our seniors,

[52:51] to the units that will accommodate everyone in between would be that action.

[52:55] In other words, in 2021 homes in any Virginia's place to provide will make a very real and tangible

[53:00] difference in myself and my fellow community members.

[53:03] Locals deserve more than we've been getting on every count and by every measure.

[53:07] So please give us a headline to combat the weariness and jadedness we feel reading like headlines

[53:11] like the one in the recent New York Times.

[53:13] Give us a Virginia project that reflects us in all of our diversity of ages, financial

[53:18] realities, family sizes, and stages of life.

[53:21] Trust your staff, your legal representation, and consultants to bring the best version of

[53:25] this 100% deed restricted products or completion.

[53:28] Thank you for your time, your service, and your efforts to support the painfully needed housing

[53:48] And I am very happy to be here to say, we are at home.

[53:56] I have prospered thanks to the people and to these people.

[54:01] My name is Lanca Molle, I'm the coordinator of the Lanca Molle.

[54:05] Representing 20% of the community, I am very happy to be here to say,

[54:16] The local community has welcomed people from other cities, states and countries.

[54:22] These people need to feel welcome and have the sense of belonging, and that come from having

[54:28] opportunities to grow, having a job and a house to go home.

[54:32] Please allow this town to continue to be home to people who want to grow and maintain its success.

[54:47] So

[54:58] please allow the Virginia Project process to finish line.

[55:03] We are excited to see the next problem to report.

[55:05] Thank you for keeping this place and a home for this community.

[55:10] What I will permit on the project to be finished and, for

[55:16] favor, the motion as a result, because we are very emotional

[55:20] to see the resources.

[55:22] Thank you very much for having this place,

[55:25] and thank you for

[55:36] giving us this opportunity.

[55:38] Hello, my neighbors and friends. My name is Jean-Day and I'm in the draft

[55:43] for Jay. I am 100% the support of the Virginia project. 90 Virginia project, I

[55:52] guess maybe this will be followed. The two and a half years you've worked on it have

[55:57] produced a good result. It might seem slow or expensive. Maybe it's been both of

[56:04] those things but it's going to be a great project. Hang in there. You did good work.

[56:08] It was not in the state, it was not wrong.

[56:11] It's the right thing to do.

[56:14] I think the results will come forth sooner than many projects

[56:18] brought before you.

[56:19] It sounds like it could be ready to go pretty soon,

[56:24] like 220 plus units online.

[56:27] We need it.

[56:29] It's been a good effort among the two entities.

[56:32] Thank you for that.

[56:33] I know that sometimes there are tensions there

[56:36] And certainly the sharing of the funding is going to be an interesting conversation, but you'll do it.

[56:45] I will say, too, I love it that seniors have mentioned multiple times in this room and in the documents.

[56:51] Because you have seniors, age, out of their housing and workplace to go.

[56:56] It's going to be an amazing asset on your books.

[56:58] You'll look back and you'll be able to say we could go job.

[57:02] So again, I'm 100% in favor of this Virginia neighborhood, thank you.

[57:09] Thank you.

[57:16] Hello mayor council and commissioners.

[57:18] My name is Brandon Dimchoff.

[57:20] I support that 90 Virginia.

[57:22] The development and I'm asking you to move it forward without further delay.

[57:27] I'm one of those people who moved to Jackson for a season in November.

[57:31] And now I am trying to take around here.

[57:35] That's going to imagine it's a little difficult sometimes, but I am, I am definitely not one of the people who is going to qualify for one of these units, but I'm here this afternoon because over a third of the people who serve this community from nurses teachers firefighters police can't afford to live here and have to commute over the past or sometimes further every day.

[57:57] I want people who make this town work to live in this town.

[58:02] Having essential workers loose here makes a whole community stronger, strong schools, faster emergency responses, more CEO businesses, and more new community members to be friends with.

[58:15] The rental vacancy rate is effectively zero.

[58:19] I understand there's loads of food funds for exactly this purpose.

[58:23] The land is purchased, the developer is selected, the designs are solid.

[58:27] We can't afford to decline or delay an opportunity for 211

[58:33] de-restricted homes, next to the library and transit offering affordable rental and the ownership

[58:39] opportunities of wide range of incomes.

[58:44] Panoros has made guarantees about completion and covering costs overruns in the public use

[58:52] land.

[58:52] It seems like a good deal to me.

[58:54] This project has been in public meetings for nearly three years, a friend of mine is

[59:00] fond of saying how the delayed is helping to guide.

[59:03] So I am here to ask you to please work through the remaining questions with urgency and to

[59:10] find a way to give this project the essence possible.

[59:13] Thank you for your service of community and your work on this issue.

[59:19] Thank you.

[59:19] My

[59:27] name is Mark Macedonia, I'm a Jackson resident, lived here for four years, and coming here for four years.

[59:36] Mr. Mayor, commissioners and council members, I appreciate you taking the time to review this 90 Virginian project and your support of it going forward.

[59:47] I would just say my learned colleagues here have showed a lot of life on all the progress

[59:54] that you've made.

[59:55] You invest in the time and effort to the community, which is a wonderful thing, and I was

[1:00:00] Let's say this community, in my recollection of coming here for the last four years and being here before, is that we're very good at getting the wants, you know, whether it's hotels or museum extensions, improving all the wants of the community, but sometimes the needs of the community are harder to want. And we need you to take action to create homes with locals now, you know, with the current workforce being stretched then and compounded by workers.

[1:00:29] having to commute from locations to service our community, affordable workforce housing is essential

[1:00:35] for community stability as well as necessary to meet the demands of future growth. So I urge you

[1:00:42] to further support and continue the efforts for completion of this product and thank you for your

[1:00:47] service. Thank you. And the other comments in the room. Thank you so much for lining up.

[1:00:53] Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

[1:00:59] Hello everyone. My name is Kirsten. I'm the Executive Director of Shelter G.H.

[1:01:05] We represent registered workers and neighbors who are often left out of these rooms, but you feel that it has insured issues directly.

[1:01:13] I have looked back these three years of public comment on this issue from the purchase of land to the drafting of RFP, the selection of the developer.

[1:01:20] You know, here we are. So much paperwork has been done and thank you for putting so much effort into all of this.

[1:01:27] During this meeting, you'll undoubtedly debate prices and the final lotments, rent costs, developed reviews, parking spots for a footage and countless other numbers that characterize the details of this project. Thank you for your diligence.

[1:01:43] While you work to secure a deal at the best, I ask you also take the time to turn over

[1:01:47] to very real people who have the ability to stay in this community because of the homes

[1:01:51] this project will create.

[1:01:54] Over my six years working with sheltered J.H. and since the time I first saw the T-times

[1:01:58] in 2012, my most treasured moments have been the community members to make this waste

[1:02:03] home.

[1:02:04] I think of the rap guides in that when I first moved here, we crammed our old bands and

[1:02:08] to girls and to the parking lot so we could afford to live here and to people on the river.

[1:02:12] And I think them for making my foundation a year is here full of experiences that most

[1:02:17] people only dream of.

[1:02:18] I think of my mentors, people I would love to for guidance, navigating the complex world

[1:02:23] of housing policy and nonprofit advocacy work.

[1:02:27] I think people like Mary Erickson for their bottomless support and perseverance.

[1:02:32] I see my friends' children who are facing an answer in the future as this county grapples

[1:02:37] a big stream of inequality. I look forward to seeing them grow to the next generation of leaders.

[1:02:43] And finally, if you could finish up, I'd be great.

[1:02:45] Oh, and must be spoken a lot more slowly than I did when I was there.

[1:02:49] And finally, I think of the community that surround shelter GH. People like my colleague Blanca,

[1:02:57] who, along with 10,000 others, bravely took her first to pass every day. People like Whitney

[1:03:02] organizing volunteer on the shelter to H4, but also the housing supply board.

[1:03:07] These have been plus-part roads, and I think of Joey Fackett, who still closely shares his

[1:03:11] photography expertise to document the early days of our growing membership.

[1:03:15] I know each of you have the treasured memories of those you love in this community,

[1:03:19] and by saying yes to this project, you're creating more opportunities to build relationships

[1:03:22] with those you love, and those you may even have yet to need. So, I miss this challenge.

[1:03:29] Please remember your choice here today as to further a project that will offer

[1:03:32] First ability to people like Blanca, Mary Whitney, Joey, yourself,

[1:03:36] Sophie's for this project and trust yourself today.

[1:03:39] Thank you.

[1:03:41] And either comments in the ring, it will go online.

[1:03:48] Mr. Rosenthal, you should be able to unmute yourself.

[1:03:51] Please take your name for the record and share your comments

[1:03:54] for three minutes' choice.

[1:04:02] You need to unmute yourself if you're talking.

[1:04:07] And after you've painted well on you, I mean,

[1:04:09] I think you've been there awhile.

[1:04:10] So you may have dropped off and we'll go on to,

[1:04:18] it's only listed as Julian, you are

[1:04:24] unmuted, please stay cheerful, make it a record and share comments if you're mentalist.

[1:04:30] Thank you. Can everyone hear me?

[1:04:33] Thank you.

[1:04:37] Yeah, we can hear you.

[1:04:39] I just wanted to say that I would like to see this project get across the finish line.

[1:04:46] And if possible and necessary, please provide the Housing Director in anyone else with any

[1:04:55] financial assistance as needed, whether it be explanations or any other

[1:05:03] outside help from any council that can help with any financial questions. Thank you.

[1:05:10] But thank you, Mr. Haas, if there's any other comments on line, please use the raised hand.

[1:05:19] I'm going to come back to you, Mr. Rosenthal.

[1:05:23] You need to unmute yourself before we can hear you.

[1:05:25] It's showing that you are not unmuted.

[1:05:31] I am going to unmute you here and you're on your end.

[1:05:39] Sorry, that did not work out. Please feel free to share your comments.

[1:05:44] and via email or other racist share public comment.

[1:05:50] Thank you.

[1:05:51] Anybody else online, please use the raised hand feature?

[1:05:55] Seeing none, we'll bring it back

[1:05:57] to council and his staff, Mr. Norton,

[1:06:01] if you could have the big questions on.

[1:06:04] I'm sorry, what's that?

[1:06:04] Hope we do have one more.

[1:06:06] Okay, if you're online, you want to speak.

[1:06:08] Please use the raised hand picture now

[1:06:10] because I'm not going to come back to you.

[1:06:13] Mr. Thal, you should be able to unmute yourself, share your comments for a few minutes or less,

[1:06:22] and again, I've seen more hands. If you're interested online, please raise it now. I'm not going

[1:06:26] to, I can't keep this open for a, um, which of all? Hi, Larry Thal here and just wanted to voice my

[1:06:35] support for the project. I did an initial site study prior to the purchase of the property,

[1:06:44] and this is just an ideal site for this kind of housing project, and I don't think it should

[1:07:05] Some of the details about which housing is built first.

[1:07:09] I support the staff recommendations that you got in your staff report and is reiterated

[1:07:16] by April, Norton today.

[1:07:19] So I just wanted to confirm my support and keep working on the details but don't get bogged

[1:07:27] down in them.

[1:07:28] Keep your eye on the big picture, which is we need the units built.

[1:07:33] Thank you for everybody's effort.

[1:07:35] for on this. That's it. You take care.

[1:07:38] Thank you.

[1:07:42] Let's see.

[1:07:44] Waska.

[1:07:46] I know I just put you to name. I thought that I know better.

[1:07:50] You should mute yourself and share your comments.

[1:07:55] Hi.

[1:07:56] No, you got the last name.

[1:07:58] Correct.

[1:08:01] Well done.

[1:08:03] Thank you for everybody's time today.

[1:08:05] today. I am a resident of Jackson year round. I did have to get my shift covered to go

[1:08:15] to a different housing meeting today and to make this comment, but I felt like it was

[1:08:20] really important to do that work because of all the struggles we have in our community

[1:08:25] to find affordable housing. So in that vein, I am here to also express

[1:08:32] address my support for the project at the Virginia and to urge everybody on the town council

[1:08:39] and the county commissioners to say the course and to heed the voters during the spec campaign

[1:08:49] and our voices about our need for affordable housing and push through and get those 221 affordable

[1:08:57] units built at the Virginia.

[1:09:01] There's a lot of chatter, but it is a great project for the community and it's as much needed.

[1:09:06] So please continue and please get this project. Please land the plane on this project.

[1:09:14] Thank you.

[1:09:16] I didn't catch the night.

[1:09:17] We asked you to remain.

[1:09:18] Would you pronounce it and make sure I get it right?

[1:09:21] There's also no person.

[1:09:23] Oh, I'm so.

[1:09:24] It's Kelsey Blasca.

[1:09:30] Was that correct?

[1:09:32] You're muted.

[1:09:33] Yeah.

[1:09:34] Yeah.

[1:09:34] That is correct.

[1:09:35] Okay.

[1:09:39] So we will bring it back and just

[1:09:47] staff for going through the questions.

[1:09:52] Now my procedural question is this,

[1:09:57] you've got so many different things here that you're

[1:10:00] expected to answer. And my concern is on that very narrow portion of it, I don't know how these

[1:10:10] seven questions are interrelated. I assume they are by reading the staff report they seem to be,

[1:10:16] and my question is, how do we think about these holistically, rather than giving,

[1:10:23] if we did eat them up in certain ways, we wrote some up, we wrote some down,

[1:10:27] to set them together. What is the overall question here? How do they all fit together?

[1:10:35] And I don't know how we're going to go about doing that, but it's been something I've

[1:10:38] concerned about since I first heard any of this information about swimming. There's some pretty

[1:10:43] big financial questions. There's some pretty big logistical legal questions. And by

[1:10:49] optimizing them, trusting them out, is there going to be what kind of consequences will I have

[1:10:56] correctly, holistically, and how do we go about anticipating or understanding what it is?

[1:11:02] So I can text you, I just have a hard time with the idea of breaking in seven separate questions.

[1:11:09] Because I think we've decided the large picture.

[1:11:12] Yeah, I will give you my response and we will go through if anyone has a particular question we can do that.

[1:11:19] To me, we've asked our staff and our legal team to go through and finalize these legal documents.

[1:11:26] these are the questions they have, also questions that they need to ask input from us. The goal is

[1:11:33] to work through them. If we agree with all seven, then they'll take that and try to implement that.

[1:11:37] There are some that we disagree, then they will take that, and I work through that.

[1:11:43] If there is, oops, sorry, but if, sorry, we don't have to finish my response.

[1:11:49] If we get into it, and there are some that are connected, like you said, we can put it in and come

[1:11:54] back to the end. We would agree with you. We may pick up maybe some interrelation, but I'm

[1:12:00] very concerned that if we try to make this more holistically, we will never get through this list.

[1:12:06] If we have time at the end, we can certainly do that. There will be another vote in this

[1:12:10] Friday. This is the final legal documents. We've had designs meetings in the past. We will come

[1:12:17] to it back to it. We will have additional comments and opportunities to talk about holistically.

[1:12:22] come to our commission government.

[1:12:24] Can I take another break?

[1:12:27] Are there any other questions before we get into the key questions?

[1:12:34] Yes, commissioners.

[1:12:36] Did I say correctly just that this is the final ripple document?

[1:12:40] This is directing staff to bring back to us the final documents.

[1:12:45] These are things that have been highlighted by our legal team

[1:12:48] And by our staff that they need policy questions from us and worried for them, I can't ask you that I ask you if you said it was the final legal document from the city just send up so you misspoke on thank you.

[1:13:01] I don't know how I misspoke, but okay.

[1:13:04] Yes, may they have a member.

[1:13:11] We're going to come back in this session here, and before we get into this,

[1:13:20] the answer, please help your vehement have a hand raised and actually help your vehement,

[1:13:28] I see with that hand color selecting with your background, I can barely see it, but again,

[1:13:33] there you go. Did you have a procedural question or process question you wanted to ask before

[1:13:39] you got into this? I do. So I suspect I'm not the only one, but I have a question that don't

[1:13:43] fit into these seven categories. Should we just hold those for the end or try and fit them into the

[1:13:49] category they close this align with? Thank you for that. My expectation worked to try to say

[1:13:56] at the end, but I also don't mind if they're

[1:14:00] closely relevant on topic in the seven feel free to bring up them.

[1:14:07] Okay, thank you. Yeah, thank you. Ms. Norton, I believe you were trying to get my attention.

[1:14:14] Oh, okay. I see a new face at the table. Oh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to introduce Mr.

[1:14:21] Tim Nash, he is consultant for the housing authority.

[1:14:26] I've been working with us on this development.

[1:14:29] Tim, would you like to introduce yourself?

[1:14:31] I've given them your name, so you can give them

[1:14:33] your like, CRED.

[1:14:35] Sure.

[1:14:36] Tim Nash, it's a pleasure to be here with all of you.

[1:14:39] We some of us have met over the past

[1:14:41] the course couple of weeks talking about this project.

[1:14:45] I've been a full-time resident of Jackson since 2018.

[1:14:48] I recently retired after 35 years as a municipal bond lawyer at QTAC Rock, which had this

[1:14:54] to be the authorities bond council that helped take down the land if you remember that transaction.

[1:15:00] My specialty as a bond lawyer was in the affordable housing and non-profit sectors, and I have represented numerous housing authorities, private developers, bond issuers, tax credit allocators, you name it, I probably represented them over the course of the past three and a half decades. Since my retirement, I am consulting in the affordable housing world. Just so happened that I made the connection with April a few years back. We stayed in touch. She said, would you like to get involved in this important project for our community? I said absolutely.

[1:15:29] So I was retained. I want to sit in late December early January and so I spent quite a bit of time trying to get up to speak out things move, move, move things forward, trying to help build consensus.

[1:15:46] I've tried to problem solve coming up with some creative ideas alternatives for you all to consider on a policy basis that hopefully we'll find their ways once we get your guidance and direction.

[1:15:55] their ways into the legal documents to then

[1:15:59] catheter catalyze moving towards the first set

[1:16:01] of financial closings and getting this thing actually launched.

[1:16:04] So that's my role that's who I am.

[1:16:06] I'm happy to answer any questions you

[1:16:07] or the public may have.

[1:16:09] Thank you so much for being here.

[1:16:10] Thank you.

[1:16:11] Thank you.

[1:16:14] Well, if I may, Mr. Mayor, while not seated at the table,

[1:16:17] I would like to introduce Charlie Adams,

[1:16:19] he's the president of development for Penrose.

[1:16:22] Also here to answer any questions you all have.

[1:16:26] Thank you.

[1:16:27] Thank you.

[1:16:27] Okay.

[1:16:28] Key question number one.

[1:16:29] There are any questions of staff or a legal team or a partner on key question number

[1:16:36] one?

[1:16:44] Okay, Garden.

[1:16:45] Sorry.

[1:16:46] You're right.

[1:16:46] That is if you move that.

[1:16:49] But when you were a Mr. Cardboard.

[1:16:51] April, I think this is for you.

[1:16:54] We talked about a little bit, what happens if the real years don't all get built?

[1:17:02] Can we get a little more clarity on like, let's say the build building one and then something happens.

[1:17:10] And what would be our next step?

[1:17:14] Commissioner Gardner, if they build building one but do not build building two,

[1:17:20] We will still be a special limited partner in the deal.

[1:17:25] We will own the entitlements and the design.

[1:17:30] They will have a lender that they have borrowed significant funding from,

[1:17:35] and they will also have investors.

[1:17:37] They are all invested in seeing the development get built.

[1:17:43] So they will, as an SLP, we will be able to work with them.

[1:17:47] They may assign another developer to come in and finish the project based on the development agreement and ground links in place.

[1:17:54] We will still own the land because we are the landlord and the ground lessor.

[1:18:00] That is obviously and I think I put this up on this slide because it really ties in with the next question about how do we ensure that both phases get built.

[1:18:12] But again, we have worked really closely with Mr. Nash to try and ensure that we are

[1:18:18] protected as possible. Again, it is, it's hard to predict the future.

[1:18:23] But, you know, we are doing our best to make sure that we are in a position

[1:18:27] should they not complete the development that we can step in and make sure that it is completed.

[1:18:36] So, you mentioned entitlements. I think I know everything that means that I'm not sure.

[1:18:42] Can you describe to me what entitlements mean?

[1:18:45] Like, planning and building approvals. They have to go to DRC. They have to go to DRC and

[1:18:51] get our planning and building approvals. And we're repiring them to do that for the entire site,

[1:18:56] not just for one phase. That is a significant amount of pre-development expense that they will have

[1:19:04] do and we are delighted they have agreed to. And that's including the entire campus. So both the

[1:19:13] 4-cyl and 4-bit. Would it be possible to assign a dollar figure to that means that it's in the

[1:19:19] millions? For the pre-violent expenses, that's a around 2.5 million. Yes.

[1:19:26] Yes, quickly while we

[1:19:28] I have that on the screen.

[1:19:30] Could you match the phases to that diagram?

[1:19:33] We have phase zero, which is infrastructure,

[1:19:35] because we talk a little bit about phasing

[1:19:37] when we get into financing,

[1:19:39] and I just wanted to make sure that I understand

[1:19:41] which phase is what.

[1:19:43] You know, so horizontal is phase zero.

[1:19:47] Phase one is the rental project.

[1:19:49] Phase two is the for sale project.

[1:19:52] Okay, Mr. Rapper.

[1:19:54] Thank you.

[1:19:56] Can you at whatever level it's currently now elucidate the horizontal infrastructure that

[1:20:04] will be part of that phase zero? I assume it's not quite all of it since some of it will

[1:20:09] be related to the other site locations? In terms of what the phase zero infrastructure

[1:20:15] is called? Yeah, of course, happy to. So most of the infrastructure is being brought from

[1:20:23] the north property line of this site or from the western side. So that's the primary utility.

[1:20:32] So electricity, gas, we also will have to do a lot of grading, erosion control, storm

[1:20:40] water detention, as well, would be a big part of that infrastructure phase. So it's really putting in,

[1:20:46] I would say, bromontons and purposes, the basic utilities to then be able to bring in the subcontractors

[1:20:52] you can start with the foundations and before the framing and so on and so forth.

[1:20:57] Thank you. Yeah. And so parking would be part of the grading. So preparing the site for development.

[1:21:06] Councillor Schaffer. Yeah. My question is this,

[1:21:12] in preparation for this meeting, I spent a lot of time

[1:21:15] over the weekend going back and looking at past the affidavits and the like. And one thing that kept

[1:21:22] popping up was we were trying to make decisions. We were being urged to make decisions very quickly

[1:21:26] because we wanted to have a groundbreaking summer. Right now it's March 9th. According to

[1:21:34] staff report, we're supposed to meet again on April 13th, which I don't know that it's in the work

[1:21:38] because soon the town has budget meetings and that they popped up. But it seems increasingly

[1:21:46] and likely to achieve that we could break down the summer

[1:21:50] so I'm curious about what is the timing.

[1:21:53] I mean, we've had board delays now,

[1:21:57] and we keep staying pushed out to get the development agreement.

[1:22:02] And who knows how much longer is going to serve?

[1:22:06] A, is it realistic to expect crown to be broken this summer?

[1:22:11] and be what they are looking at as the earliest and likely date for any kind of thing, just

[1:22:21] given the way things are going.

[1:22:23] I can give that a try.

[1:22:25] So I think the bonus answer is it depends, depends on a lot of things falling into place

[1:22:29] that development agreement and getting that executed between the parties is a critical milestone.

[1:22:35] Our design and construction team has completed schematic drawings, so we are ready and willing

[1:22:40] enabling enable to immediately submit a development option plan for reviews.

[1:22:44] That's really the first step in the entitlement process, so we can get that going as soon as

[1:22:50] April.

[1:22:52] And then, you know, we're working towards the development option plan.

[1:22:57] So that needs to be reviewed and approved.

[1:23:00] We haven't gone through more of a permitting process for just the basic side plans.

[1:23:06] So that's the first step in the entitlement process.

[1:23:08] Because to answer your question directly, we are really working hard to be able to break

[1:23:14] around this fall.

[1:23:15] I think the summer is probably ambitious, but it could potentially be this fall.

[1:23:18] So long as we have a successful DOP review, we get through the DRC with support and we get

[1:23:26] the development agreement executed.

[1:23:28] So those are like the really three important milestones that stand in between us and the groundbreaking.

[1:23:33] So this idea that we've been pushing to have something happen with summer, but at this point,

[1:23:42] somewhere between the best case and more realistically here, it best the fall.

[1:23:47] Yeah, I think the summer would be ambitious. So I think the fall is, you know, a reasonable target.

[1:23:52] Of course, a lot of construction is weather dependent. So, you know, we can't control that.

[1:23:57] Thank you.

[1:24:00] Thank you, two parts here. Are we lumping key question one and two together right now?

[1:24:07] They're connected enough. Sorry, the audio glitches every once in a while online, so I can't tell if I'm missing certain things.

[1:24:16] The second part of that is can you, in real basic terms, explain to me why hold

[1:24:27] on, my thing froze.

[1:24:29] can you still see me? Perfect. How can we be

[1:24:38] confident that the full

[1:24:39] project will be delivered? So Shannon you mentioned that in some 50 years or

[1:24:45] whatever it was decades and decades, Penrose has never not finished a project.

[1:24:49] And so why can't we have that in our contracts? Why do we kind of have to take

[1:24:55] this leap of faith that for my understanding so far that we're being asked to

[1:24:59] take with this second phase. And I'm not looking at it as doomsday or worst case, just why can't we have that contractually agreed upon?

[1:25:08] Great, great question. You know, the two phases are finance completely separately, so there are two separate transactions.

[1:25:17] And so, you know, there's, if they were one transaction, right, that was finance at one time, then, you know, then we would have everything committed and would just be about logistics of starting.

[1:25:29] construction, but there are two separate financing and then from a constructability standpoint,

[1:25:36] the buildings have to be faced. There's only so much construction activity that I think

[1:25:40] can occur on the site at one time. You know, I think when you're saying you're looking for

[1:25:45] assurances, I just want to pull back and you know, remind everyone again that we're investing

[1:25:52] in the design and entitlements as one campus. And if the second phase for some reason were

[1:25:59] not to proceed then the town inherits those design and entitlements and still continues

[1:26:05] to control the land. So you have that security that it might not just be a matter of if but

[1:26:11] when and by whom. So does that answer your question at all? Yeah, kind of, kind of.

[1:26:19] That would be authority.

[1:26:21] Second.

[1:26:21] The housing authority.

[1:26:23] Okay.

[1:26:24] Counter.

[1:26:26] Counterbeam with that.

[1:26:27] Did you have any follow up?

[1:26:29] No, that was it.

[1:26:30] Thank you.

[1:26:32] Okay.

[1:26:33] Commissioner Gerner.

[1:26:34] Thank you.

[1:26:35] Smith.

[1:26:39] When.

[1:26:40] When you build this follows up on Christian Mackers question.

[1:26:44] So.

[1:26:45] With the details of the infrastructure.

[1:26:49] How much infrastructure.

[1:26:50] pressure would be left to bill or just the under for phases four and find up the for sale phase two, the for sale project or let all be done.

[1:27:04] It will be essentially the infrastructure that can be tapped into to build the for sale fees will be ready and available.

[1:27:11] So the electricity will be brought to the property line, the gas line, the grading will be completed.

[1:27:17] And we can parse that out, if that makes sense to do all of it or pull back and only do some of it.

[1:27:23] I think that's for future discussion as we get further into design.

[1:27:27] When you said property line, I don't know how to use in close to the building.

[1:27:31] Yeah, yeah, that's correct. So we're envisioning that this will be a sub-divided parcel.

[1:27:36] So it would be effectively whatever the line is dividing between the percent and the percent.

[1:27:40] So subdivided parcel, you mean like literally the parcel will be broken up in pieces, okay, so you do need proper one.

[1:27:52] Yes, okay, thanks for a lot of time, maybe.

[1:27:54] And if I can add on the RFP required, they subdivided the property.

[1:28:01] Okay, any additional questions and I'd like to think we could wrap up these first two questions and maybe some more discussion point, but any questions?

[1:28:10] Okay, let's bring it to counsel and commission for any discussion on question one and two.

[1:28:17] Yes, Richard.

[1:28:20] Thank you very much.

[1:28:23] Building this in two phases makes a basic construction sense.

[1:28:28] You can't do it all once.

[1:28:30] So do the rental first and the first sale second, but please don't vote.

[1:28:36] We signed on to have a project in the land out of the rental ones are where you make more profits, so it looks sort of like you have disincented to build the for sale units.

[1:28:50] I believe that's the way you operate. I don't think that's what we're expecting.

[1:28:55] And I think just like the logistics require, we do things in Tuesday, just so I think this is easy to work.

[1:29:02] So, any other discussions we're going back to?

[1:29:09] Go ahead, Commissioner.

[1:29:10] It's desperate not to follow.

[1:29:13] Just give my answer.

[1:29:14] I want to have your chance, sir.

[1:29:15] No, I appreciate the way you want to be.

[1:29:17] This is Mary.

[1:29:18] My answer to question one is absolutely.

[1:29:21] I bet for all reasons given.

[1:29:23] The question to Frank Laos, prepared to come in here today.

[1:29:27] And give you an answer that would create some friction.

[1:29:30] And, you know, understanding the entitlements piece, the infrastructure piece, and recognizing

[1:29:42] their partnership that we're in here, and the fact that you've never not performed,

[1:29:49] I am willing to take a risk, slight risk to and not newcomer.

[1:30:00] The plan was to create some kind of pilgrimage, some kind of dissing senator to encourage you to complete the ownership. But recognizing the investment you're making, really wrapping my mind around that, I'm convinced that you are here for the whole project. Otherwise, you wouldn't have agreed the entitlement piece that really is to need a commitment. I needed to see. And that replaces the penalty that I was trying to impose for non-delivery.

[1:30:29] I think that is an advert, finally, the fact that you're going to be selling us in this

[1:30:35] side of the project that you may not build, but I agree with Commissioner Carlin.

[1:30:41] This is one project for the community.

[1:30:44] This is one project for this side of the partnership and we have that very expectation.

[1:30:49] I have that very expectation to see Penrose complete what they finished as I'm truly view.

[1:30:56] So thanks for bearing with me as I got to head to work through that, but when you have my support for one and two.

[1:31:03] Gages, and I know, and I'll, I'll use contraceptives and I like it when we ask for straw polls.

[1:31:11] I'm question one.

[1:31:13] Are we all in favor with the Britain's those two patients?

[1:31:17] I understand.

[1:31:18] Just raise your hand.

[1:31:20] Thumbs up.

[1:31:21] Something.

[1:31:26] I want to make sure we click, we check these on, on question two, and Commissioner Gardner is just going to win in that a little bit more, there are any other councillors or commissioner that would like to speak to question two.

[1:31:48] Thank you.

[1:31:52] Thank

[1:31:55] you.

[1:31:56] I would propose that there might be a way to link.

[1:32:02] the COO of the rental project to the permits, for example, of the per sale, the condo portion

[1:32:16] development, and I would be curious to hear what staff would have to say about an idea

[1:32:27] like that.

[1:32:35] So if I may have a response to that suggestion, and we've had, I think, multiple conversations

[1:32:42] with staff on this point, so maybe Ibo can chime in as well, but linking a completion

[1:32:48] milestone on one project to another project, I think that was referenced in the slide.

[1:32:54] That's where that's infeasible from a lender and investor perspective.

[1:32:58] So again, as we've mentioned, this is to really think about the for sale project is very

[1:33:03] independent from the for sale, that prevent from the for sale, they're two independent separately

[1:33:08] finance transactions.

[1:33:10] So we won't be able to secure construction lender and a mortgage lender and an investor

[1:33:16] on the for sale if something about that project is contingent upon some other portion of the

[1:33:23] for sale project.

[1:33:24] So there's two projects can't be linked in that way. They need to stand independent of each other. So I think what you're asking for is just, you know, infeasible from a financing perspective.

[1:33:38] Sorry, keep looking at the screen.

[1:33:40] Yeah, you can go look at the camera. You're looking at her.

[1:33:43] Let's see.

[1:33:45] Commission out counter-shooter.

[1:33:49] Yeah, I guess first

[1:33:54] I'll share on you said something that really was music my years, which is that you're here to answer as many questions of the problem.

[1:33:59] Yeah, that's right.

[1:34:02] So, got on.

[1:34:03] But this is not the problem is that this is really not a good setting for that.

[1:34:10] And it's extremely unfortunate.

[1:34:12] And I mention that because just listening to your comments just now.

[1:34:17] Um, my comments from my colleagues, the comments from the public, um, it raised a lot more

[1:34:24] questions for me and I don't feel like from a fiduciary responsibility. I'm very comfortable

[1:34:31] in being able to say, oh, yes, I'm a favorite of this or not a favorite. It seems to me that

[1:34:37] in my lack of knowledge, it's a pretty contractually, why we shouldn't be getting a contract doesn't

[1:34:42] doesn't make any sense to me, because we got to a certain level of assurance from my side.

[1:34:48] So this is something I want to explore, and I just, I'm hesitant to go ahead with the

[1:34:54] staff recommendation on number one, until I can get more information and get to a better

[1:34:59] level of assurance, and it's very, very difficult for me personally, sitting up here trying

[1:35:05] to make a decision on the fly, having just gotten the staff report a couple of days ago, having

[1:35:10] gotten new information. If we're going to make decisions about $5, $10, $50 million worth of

[1:35:16] full of money and about the risks of this thing not happening, I feel like it's really important

[1:35:23] for me for the fiduciary responsibility to be as certain about this and that's part of the reason

[1:35:30] why I asked the question about whether we're going to be bringing them because for a year now we've

[1:35:35] been having pressure to make a decision, make a decision. I'm totally telling these to make a decision

[1:35:40] because we have to keep our process moving.

[1:35:44] I'm afraid that's getting in the way of our fiduciaries, funcabilities,

[1:35:48] and so it's making it easy to go along with,

[1:35:53] oh, no contract until I can be certain,

[1:35:56] because I didn't want to take it in further until I've heard your perspective,

[1:36:00] which I don't have, and I feel like I appreciate it a little bit better.

[1:36:04] So this is going to be a thing that comes up over the course of these seven questions for me

[1:36:08] because I feel like we get information for the last minute and then we're asked to make some very complicated and very big dollar high state and long-generational types of decisions and make it one of the five.

[1:36:21] Because of the pressure of the situation and there doesn't feel very comfortable.

[1:36:25] So thank you.

[1:36:27] Okay. I'm going to go through my list. We'll have a chance to wrap this up. Let's see, Commissioner

[1:36:33] Cohn, you're next. Okay. Count our commissioner approach. Thank you. A question for Tim. First,

[1:36:41] thank you for coming out of retirement to help us. I really appreciate that you're helping.

[1:36:48] But related to question two, I just want to get a sense of your confidence in the current

[1:36:56] structure.

[1:36:57] Is there anything that you would recommend to reduce the risk that it's not included?

[1:37:02] Are you feel pretty comfortable with this package?

[1:37:04] And I hate to ask you that kind of question, but that's the way it isn't worth this thought.

[1:37:08] Yeah, no, all the questions are fair.

[1:37:11] I would say we spend a lot of time in negotiations, discussions with your team in Penrose,

[1:37:17] And that linking the completion of the two and we tried to withhold the developer fee we're not going to pay the line share to both are done.

[1:37:25] I can see now that that's probably not workable from a financial perspective because we do have to even though we all view it as a single campus.

[1:37:33] Right? It really is two separate projects and that's financing forward the rental project is going to be separate and

[1:37:40] Distance from the financing for force out project. Now we will have usual sort of a reciprocal easements and shared use and

[1:37:48] the lawyers in the room can talk more about that. So we had to then pivot to look for a collection or an aggregation of

[1:37:57] mitigating factors or additional conditions that we could bring to the table, not necessarily

[1:38:02] to bring pain, a pain point, but sort of creative pressure point.

[1:38:08] And so we have talked about things like changing the way that the developer fee is paid

[1:38:14] in installments and maybe back waiting that so that we at least get to completion of the

[1:38:20] rental phase, which will include the horizontal for the entire site before they get a line

[1:38:25] and share that developer fee or the cash portion of the developer fee. We've talked about

[1:38:30] that work product, that entitlement package that's going to belong to the authority so that

[1:38:35] they don't perform, that's ours. At that moment in time, they would be in reach of the development

[1:38:41] agreement. And the funders, so when I say funders are lenders in the equity investor, we would have

[1:38:46] rights to go against. Penrose, we would have the right to replace Penrose. Penrose's guaranteed

[1:38:53] would still be out there so that if the second developer came in and said well it's going to cost

[1:38:57] X more, there would be interesting legal battle. You know, maybe on the scope of this discussion.

[1:39:03] We could, we talked about potentially holding back some of the reimbursements for pre-development

[1:39:07] expenses. So keep the incentive high for them to continue pushing forward, complete the war zones,

[1:39:14] right? Push hard to get the completion of the rental. I think once we hit that milestone,

[1:39:20] I'm not going to say the rest becomes easier, but I think it becomes easier, for example,

[1:39:26] for the financing package on the ForSale project, if those horizontals are done, or at

[1:39:30] least they're pretty much, we used to say, show already, I know people don't like that

[1:39:34] word, those words, but if it's ready to go, then we've basically taken that, all of that

[1:39:42] infrastructure risk off of the lender's risk profile, their risk assessment, their underwriting

[1:39:48] makes it easier to get that done. So if Penrose can't and we have to go find

[1:39:53] somebody else to get it done, we did get 11 responses to the RFP. There are

[1:39:57] other people out there that want to do this project with us. But we think we

[1:40:01] can make it work with Penrose. There's still some give and take. But we tried that.

[1:40:06] We pivoted. I think this collection of mitigating factors is going to end up

[1:40:09] being pretty strong. And I feel good about it. You're asking for my personal

[1:40:13] Thank you.

[1:40:13] Appreciate it.

[1:40:14] May it bad to that a little bit too.

[1:40:16] I think we, you know, this is an appropriate form to talk about the worst case scenario.

[1:40:21] And I appreciate it as a fiduciary, you want to be focused on, you know, if there's a cliff

[1:40:26] and we fall off of it, what does that look like?

[1:40:29] I think there are measures in place too that, you know, we'll be obligations of us, including

[1:40:35] at least on the rental phase, right, putting our equity into the deal early.

[1:40:39] So, once we've invested in the rental phase, we're invested in 161 units.

[1:40:46] We have to stand up a property management team, a maintenance team.

[1:40:50] We have to staff that, bringing on an additional 60 condos to help achieve some economies

[1:40:56] of scale from a property management and an operations standpoint, benefits the whole project.

[1:41:02] So, we want, we're invested in seeing the first sale piece we built, right?

[1:41:08] We need to pay for that staff.

[1:41:10] We need to ensure continuity of the neighborhood for long-term, that reduces our risk as well.

[1:41:16] So, just another point is to, you know, I think it feels like a more of an intangible, but

[1:41:21] I hopefully it speaks to our commitment to see both phases come to fruition.

[1:41:26] Because Penrose will have obligations, I'm expecting the documents from the funders sort

[1:41:30] of anticipating what they're going to look like, their obligations on the rental side live

[1:41:36] on well-passed completion of development process and delivery of the rental project, right?

[1:41:41] They're going to have things like operating guarantees of a sort. We don't know what they're

[1:41:45] going to be yet because we haven't had those discussions with funders, but they're going

[1:41:49] to be on the hook from an operational perspective. So a lot of that will live on. And it's in

[1:41:54] their best interest, which in this case aligns with our best interests, that this thing functions

[1:42:00] is as efficiently and as economically as possible.

[1:42:05] So the risk there to them are real, absolutely.

[1:42:09] Thank you.

[1:42:10] Well, Councilor B. Matt, I think your hand goes up

[1:42:13] and then it went down.

[1:42:15] Is that, you're good?

[1:42:18] Okay.

[1:42:21] Commissioner Garner.

[1:42:24] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:42:26] You know, to miss the Councilwoman's very question, you know, I think you and I were

[1:42:32] thinking along the same terms as, you know, there's a desire from folks on this side

[1:42:38] to link the projects.

[1:42:39] And I, you know, in our meeting last week, I really hammered home at that, but to rephrase

[1:42:46] what I said earlier, the entitlements to plans, the infrastructure, the developer fee schedule,

[1:42:55] and I appreciate the fact that in this negotiation we found something that is meaningful to us,

[1:43:04] those pieces, in lieu of something that really kills the project from your perspective.

[1:43:12] I really appreciate how that came to be because for me it would have been really hard to get to it,

[1:43:18] guess on these on that second question without believing that these linkages do exist.

[1:43:25] You just found a way to work around for the sake of your investors, linking dollars, dollars

[1:43:31] across the project, but by being willing to tie plans, infrastructure entitlements, developer

[1:43:38] fee schedule, that shows me that what I needed to see.

[1:43:42] Mr. Mayor.

[1:43:43] I just want to point out time is flying by and we have a whole lot more to discuss and so we have questions. Let's get the questions out.

[1:43:53] I'm getting ready to call this motion. Yeah, so I'm counter-shockin.

[1:43:57] Yeah, too. I mean, you may. Thank you. All right. I had to look at it.

[1:44:03] But we use the pronoun our, who is, who is the, in that sense, who's the client you're

[1:44:10] representing here?

[1:44:11] Because I'm, I'm not really clear about a lot of this and so having recently retired,

[1:44:20] I'm having a lot of trouble pronouns, our, well, my, my consulting client is the authority.

[1:44:27] The authority obviously is the collaboration on a joint powers basis between town and county.

[1:44:34] So my client, if you will, is the authority, but by, you know, organically that will spill over to county and town.

[1:44:45] But I do not represent either the county or the town specifically just the authority.

[1:44:48] And we're in your experience, is it having something like this without a contract?

[1:44:56] Is that difficult?

[1:44:57] Is that normal?

[1:45:00] I don't know what you mean by without a comment. Not having a contract to guarantee the second portion of that. Would that be typical normal? Well, the development agreement that we are negotiating, they are committing and agreeing to finish the project, which is the entire site. It's just that we have to break, it has to be broken into phases for many of the reasons that Shannon described. So I want to be clear that Lea and Keeper in the room where they were. Am I mis

[1:45:36] That's the development agreement that we're talking about asking for your direction on these

[1:45:40] policy points to finish the negotiations.

[1:45:43] Yes, it's for the whole site, the whole project.

[1:45:46] It would be broken into these phases though.

[1:45:49] But it would be absolutely to your question though, it would be absolutely atypical, very

[1:45:54] usually not to have that inked and writing then to sort of hit the accelerator and try to get to

[1:46:01] final designs, you know, get to a financial closing that would be functionally impossible almost.

[1:46:06] Does that make sense?

[1:46:07] Thank you.

[1:46:08] You did just remember where it stems by it.

[1:46:09] It isn't agreement, it isn't contracture.

[1:46:11] Absolutely.

[1:46:13] Sensing that as much clarified, and actually I'm going to ask, and I'm not sure whether it's

[1:46:18] housing department staff or maybe town manager, when we do these stock goals, can you kind of keep

[1:46:23] been ongoing to submit surveys. We did a majority of the vote bodies that said yes to question 1.

[1:46:30] And I'm now going to ask the question 2. Are we comfortable with the staff recommendation as

[1:46:35] presented on question 2, based on the discussion and clarification we just had?

[1:46:41] I am and the staff report lays out what Penrose has agreed to and I include that in my approval too.

[1:46:47] So please raise your hand if we're comfortable Mr. Mayor.

[1:46:50] I'm excited.

[1:46:51] Characterism was good last time.

[1:46:53] It was great.

[1:46:54] It's just what is in the staff report

[1:46:56] that can give us this agreed to design an entirely

[1:46:59] entire site and show they have financing commitments

[1:47:01] for both these.

[1:47:04] Andrew H, please, would you be comfortable?

[1:47:09] I've seen it online.

[1:47:10] Is that not the one Andrew?

[1:47:14] OK.

[1:47:16] But I think that it gives us the words of mature.

[1:47:18] Well, he must look on the town side.

[1:47:20] Are you comfortable in stirring with how the staff recommendation on question number two?

[1:47:31] Okay, so there's not a majority there, so let's put it down that and we can come back to it when we get to the end of this when we keep going.

[1:47:39] Question number three, the previously committed 10 million first ten town county funding

[1:47:46] being contributed to this project. To me, both the town and the county have taken time to have

[1:47:52] this discussion. My recollections were about $750,000 a part in that discussion.

[1:47:59] What I'm looking

[1:48:00] for, what's needed here is between the two bodies, we committed to putting in additional, I mean,

[1:48:07] putting in the initial $10 million. We recognized there's a little bit of work we need to do on our own

[1:48:12] And we will go through and have that discussion in terms of scheduling that in our Catholic

[1:48:18] meeting tomorrow.

[1:48:19] Sure.

[1:48:19] I don't want to jump into it.

[1:48:21] But I just have questions.

[1:48:22] But I do have a question.

[1:48:24] I've been confused for two and a half years on the first million in the second 10 million.

[1:48:30] Why can't we put money up for the free purchases for the right of first purchase and right

[1:48:40] of first rental?

[1:48:41] Well, I can't put 10 million down on the table now, and NROs can use that however they

[1:48:48] need to use it to get this project out off the ground, and then come back and ask the

[1:48:53] question, how much more money do we need, and what comprises the myths of that, whether

[1:48:59] it's housing mitigation fees, general funds, et cetera, et cetera.

[1:49:05] So I want to restate your question to make sure we're answering the right thing.

[1:49:09] Your question is, can we essentially flip the first and the second and say yes to the

[1:49:15] first hand, like you have done for the past two years, and instead, and allow Pinro's

[1:49:21] to use it to invest in the horizontal infrastructure. For phase hero, you would like to get rights

[1:49:28] of first rental for that funding or something else. And then you would like them to come

[1:49:34] back to you again to ask for the second 10 I think we are after we have further discussions

[1:49:41] you know about unit mix and this that and the other commission to go I I'm not sure how to

[1:49:48] answer this question we've had a lot of discussions about unit mix and design I think the question

[1:49:54] in front of you today is there too one is you've already said yes to the 10 million staff are recommending

[1:50:01] that you use the initial 10 for infrastructure on a reimbursement basis and then loan the balance

[1:50:08] into the project. Then we're asking you about the second 10. And if you are interested in willing

[1:50:15] to commit to investing up to the second 10 into the project for which you would receive rights

[1:50:22] a first rental or people are just, I am, I am unclear as to how, I don't know that

[1:50:28] I can answer that your question is presented because the first and has already been agreed

[1:50:34] to so now we're changing that, that, that seems significant to me. So I would maybe need

[1:50:42] to condor that for a moment. And I don't know necessarily the extent to which that matters

[1:50:47] and it also puts whether the town must do this or not, but it would put the county at a little

[1:50:51] bit of risk because we agreed to some right of first purchase, right of first rental and

[1:50:56] maybe the project doesn't happen or something changes.

[1:51:00] But your funding would not go into the project.

[1:51:04] Yeah, I guess that's part of my question is we're talking about putting 20 million more

[1:51:08] dollars in and also we know we need 8.5 soon and so also part of this question is a big

[1:51:15] big question with a few facets. What's the timing on needing the remaining, you

[1:51:22] said 1.5 goes in at 50% completion. What's the timing for the next 10? And I guess I

[1:51:31] just need to explain that I am, I want to kind of hoard general fund dollars until

[1:51:37] we have our budget discussions because I know that's that through enough budget

[1:51:41] discussions to know that it's very difficult when we get down to that last few million, that we have

[1:51:47] to allocate, prioritize, or cut, or raise property taxes. And it's just hard for me now to feel

[1:51:56] good about committing those general funds until I have one really examined the unit that you did

[1:52:04] put it in as an option, which I appreciate because that can save, for example, you know, the rental

[1:52:10] a little shifting, some units could save over 2 million,

[1:52:14] and also then re-doing the categories,

[1:52:17] which it sounds like staff recommends.

[1:52:22] And so it just seems to me

[1:52:23] if we can complete those discussions,

[1:52:25] then we have, maybe we've closed the gap a little bit,

[1:52:29] if folks are, they may be just not interested

[1:52:32] in having that, that's just me.

[1:52:34] If we can close that gap as much as possible

[1:52:36] and then talk about rights of first purchase

[1:52:39] just that seems to make a lot more sense in right at first rentals and then at the very last talk about okay, it looks like we still need general funds and that would that would really help me get behind this project because I just need to feel covetous of those general funds until I've gone through the budget.

[1:52:55] May I summarize what I think I just heard, and, and, and, and, and the first 10 right now, the town and county have discussed this, the town has funding and their housing fund available for the first 10.

[1:53:09] The county agreed in theory last week to providing mitigation funds towards the first 10 and the amount of 4.1 issue million dollars was somewhere in that, in that, in that, so that was mitigation dollars, not general fund dollars.

[1:53:24] You're talking about in the second ten utilizing employee spec dollars.

[1:53:30] I do not think you are discussing general fund dollars right now for this

[1:53:35] development, unless you choose to. I think you have options to pay to cover your

[1:53:40] portion of the first and the second with mitigation dollars and spec funds. So I

[1:53:49] hear that you are concerned about utilizing general fund dollars that can be used

[1:53:52] for anything on this specific project.

[1:53:55] And I also believe that you have a path forward where you may not have to do that.

[1:54:02] So that's sort of where we are today.

[1:54:04] As it relates to other ways to reduce the gap, you're referencing the slide after the

[1:54:15] motion and after the next steps.

[1:54:16] It was those two policy questions.

[1:54:18] we were asked directly by some elected officials what would happen to the

[1:54:23] project if we removed the less than 80% ownership condos and I provided you

[1:54:28] all that. We were done that. Yeah, that wasn't an additional question. That was

[1:54:31] it, but it is part of this so that that was in the chart and those are those are

[1:54:34] that's an option that certainly can be discussed. But today for this discussion we

[1:54:40] are seeking clarity on the first ten and I commit me on the second ten and

[1:54:44] and those are important pieces, and I'll leave it to that.

[1:54:49] Okay, so I think your answer is we can't switch the first 10 with the second 10.

[1:54:53] We really need to stick with the commitments we've made.

[1:54:56] Yes, and you have the funding to do that, to cover most of the first 10,

[1:55:03] depending on how you decide types, but it's between the time and time.

[1:55:06] Mr. Burr, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:55:09] Last week, we got some interesting news that Pinterest was willing to offer a rights

[1:55:18] of first-rendal for some of the first ten, and I'm just going to ask the question out

[1:55:28] right now, assuming that our funding source allows for us to purchase rights of first-rendal.

[1:55:36] And that's the biggest assumption, it would depend on which funding source we use.

[1:55:42] And I don't want to get down a radical amount.

[1:55:44] I'm just asking for future conversations, or I'll say, would Penrose be willing to sell

[1:55:51] us rights of personal up to $10.90?

[1:55:55] So if we were to secure a funding source, if you allow the funding source, they would allow

[1:56:00] us to purchase rights of personal.

[1:56:04] I don't know.

[1:56:05] What if Andrews be a member of that?

[1:56:08] Absolutely.

[1:56:09] We're not here to stand in the way of adding value

[1:56:13] to the community and to the project.

[1:56:15] As our review was initially drafted,

[1:56:17] there is a kind of an upper limit

[1:56:19] on rights of first rental that can be sold.

[1:56:22] So as long as we can work within that framework

[1:56:25] or if that upper limit could be adjusted

[1:56:28] to allow for additional ones,

[1:56:30] I mean, I think all of those options are on the table.

[1:56:32] and I guess to just to kind of respond back to your question, you know, what we're looking

[1:56:37] for today is a commitment on the 20 million. Those funds aren't obligated or if they don't

[1:56:43] go hard into the projects until we're closing on the financing. So we've got some time,

[1:56:48] and we've cleaned where we stand today into that future point. If there are policy changes to change

[1:56:57] A.M.I. makes on the condos or what have you that would reduce that subsidy amount?

[1:57:03] We would be open to that. If we are wildly successful at raising additional rights of

[1:57:08] first-run toll that could reduce that subsidy. We would be fully transparent if we've all

[1:57:12] about that too. So I think again what we're looking for today is a commitment and an obligation

[1:57:18] and we are you know at your disposal to come back and continue the conversation.

[1:57:26] Thank you very much.

[1:57:28] I really appreciate that.

[1:57:30] And just some quick math.

[1:57:33] If we were to somehow manage to get the maximum number of rights of personal for that 10 million,

[1:57:39] it would be 36 out of the 64, which is 40 percent of the total of the rental units.

[1:57:48] So just to put in context of what Shane is talking about with the cap,

[1:57:52] But there's still, that's assuming we maxed it out somehow.

[1:57:57] There's still 28 units that in four years would be able to purchase on the right subversional

[1:58:03] to after their employees.

[1:58:05] So I think it hardly touches where that cap would be just to put it in that context.

[1:58:11] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:58:12] I'm Commissioner Crook.

[1:58:14] Thank you.

[1:58:16] Shannon, thanks for your comments.

[1:58:18] It's helpful for me, but there's one issue

[1:58:19] that I brought up last time in that.

[1:58:23] And it's still on my mind and it plays right into my ability

[1:58:27] to support a particular timeline for the commitment

[1:58:32] of the count of funds.

[1:58:34] But it goes back to the staff report early on,

[1:58:38] that says they pin those plans

[1:58:40] and target a socially motivated fund.

[1:58:42] likely to try to family office investment plan was opposed to a Wall Street fund. So far,

[1:58:49] the only investor I've heard is Cross Harbor. And I'm just trying to get a handle on

[1:58:56] not any requirement because that's not it, but it's in plans to target. And so I'd like to get

[1:59:03] a better understanding of what has been done to target socially motivated funds. And the reason

[1:59:12] I asked, but this came up with somebody I was speaking with is that it's not because

[1:59:16] I have a fetish about the socially motivated fund versus not, but, you know, a socially

[1:59:22] motivated fund could mean a more favorable distribution risk, it could mean lower cost

[1:59:28] in the info renters or buyer, so it's relevant to this discussion.

[1:59:31] It's not just esoteric.

[1:59:35] What's happened in terms of targeting socially motivated funds?

[1:59:39] are you targeting funds that perhaps have a local interest and the reason I asked that is that

[1:59:44] you know the last big housing project, much smaller than this one, was a local grant of 15 million.

[1:59:53] And I'm not suggesting grants that I am pleased to see whether there's the opportunity for

[2:00:00] Program related investments. Own foundations are from family offices that would make all of our decisions or make our need to invest easier. And so I'd like to get a sense of who are you talking to with that regard. It will be a formal report about targeting the community foundation of Jetson Hall, or a number of our fair, great, great number of foundations and investors that have a local interest and might be interested in this.

[2:00:29] The short answer is yes, we will and we have been having those conversations.

[2:00:34] I think a lot of the feedback that we get is you got a lot of width of chat before we're

[2:00:41] standing up a fund to invest in your deal, right?

[2:00:45] So we have to get to the development agreement and show that there's a legally binding commitment

[2:00:49] between the parties here to really have those conversations and earnests to really start

[2:00:55] to roll up their sleeves and invest their time in creating a fund like that. But yeah, absolutely,

[2:01:00] there are, these conversations are happening in our local in Jackson as well as regionally as well.

[2:01:06] And I assume you can't name names, but you're optimistic that that will come through as a

[2:01:10] knocking consequential element for capital study. Absolutely. I mean, it's part of the $15 million

[2:01:16] gap that we've shown in our numbers that we're committed to solving for and to quote Charlie and we say

[2:01:23] All the time in our organization ABS always be sourcing. We this is what we do. This is our job. We look for other sources of capital that are mission of line that are risk of line.

[2:01:34] We lean on our partners who have invested in our other deals because they know that we deliver and so that's what we'll do.

[2:01:40] Thank you.

[2:01:41] I'm going to come to your meeting.

[2:01:45] Thank you.

[2:01:47] Are we still on the previous one?

[2:01:49] Are we doing both of these $10 million questions together?

[2:01:52] Because the slides will be.

[2:01:55] Question number three.

[2:01:56] So the initial 10 million.

[2:01:57] So the real question here is the timing as presented by staff.

[2:02:01] Yeah, I'm indifferent on this one.

[2:02:03] I'm comfortable with staff for recommendation.

[2:02:05] When you do your straw poll.

[2:02:07] We online can't see how our colleagues

[2:02:10] are feeling about certain things, and I'd love to know.

[2:02:13] So if there's a way you can share that, that would be great.

[2:02:16] Great, we'll do.

[2:02:19] Get a counter or a checker.

[2:02:21] Yeah.

[2:02:24] So question three strikes me is pretty straightforward.

[2:02:26] We committed the 10 million.

[2:02:29] And it seems like this is a question.

[2:02:30] Does it come in early or is it coming in late?

[2:02:33] Is that the fundamental question we're looking at?

[2:02:37] Councilor Shector.

[2:02:39] Yes.

[2:02:40] How do you want to invest it?

[2:02:41] Do you want to invest it in the phase zero?

[2:02:44] and then what was new was loading the balance of the funds, which is generic.

[2:02:53] So the question is if you could just clarify it, and I don't know if it's a shaman or April,

[2:03:00] but why are we going first as opposed to us, you know, there's obviously a time-value money.

[2:03:10] And so whoever goes in first is losing that time-valued money.

[2:03:15] And so why are money going first as opposed to private funds?

[2:03:20] Is our money less valuable, et cetera?

[2:03:23] So can you clarify that?

[2:03:24] Because that was, to me, the crux of this question,

[2:03:29] you already committed the testimony and I did that.

[2:03:31] But why us first?

[2:03:33] And they just declared by Councilman Shepard,

[2:03:35] this is a reimbursement.

[2:03:36] So we are not putting our funds in and then they are going to spend them.

[2:03:39] They are, they are incurring costs and we are reimbursing them based on this.

[2:03:45] That can also come from private and that's the question, like, why are money in that

[2:03:49] industrial living?

[2:03:50] Why that?

[2:03:51] What if debt money?

[2:03:52] Yeah.

[2:03:53] I think simply put, your money is cheaper money, right?

[2:03:56] So to have your money in the project early allows for us to postpone taking on a construction

[2:04:03] loan that comes with it interest, right?

[2:04:05] So we don't want to be accruing construction period interest which on the whole this means the project more expensive so but in addition to public

[2:04:14] subsidy coming in early, it also includes investor subsidy. So our general partner equity will be obligated to the project at closing.

[2:04:24] So at the same time that your money is in or money is in the deal as well or commitment to fund that money is in the deal as well.

[2:04:32] Thank you.

[2:04:33] I'm good.

[2:04:34] Your approach.

[2:04:35] Jim, a question for you, you know, back a little bit, is it, I mean, we're already

[2:04:41] in 38, 30 million on dirt.

[2:04:44] Is it realistic to suggest that any additional funds that we provide are somehow done

[2:04:51] incrementally with the introduction of funds from a social-motivated fund, there's that

[2:04:59] overreach?

[2:05:00] I don't think that's overreach, and I was happy to hear Shannon's answer to that, because

[2:05:05] part of, and this goes a little bit ahead to four, part of what we're talking about

[2:05:10] is potentially designing what would be new to us.

[2:05:14] Another subordinate that structure to find the social impact kind of community-minded folks

[2:05:19] that might want to buy some bonds from us in exchange for some rights.

[2:05:23] So I don't, it can be done anyway if you're not living about your imagination on some level,

[2:05:28] But I do think it makes a lot of sense to deploy our public funds the first 10 your public funds the word and my friends first

[2:05:38] Because to Shannon's point what we call sort of the negative carry the drag on these projects can get to be pretty

[2:05:44] Emensive queer at taking on those loan obligations, you know using borrowed dollars because they start procuring interest

[2:05:51] On that first day that we take them down and there's only so much interest

[2:05:55] we're going to be able to capitalize relative to when we're placing units and services to

[2:05:59] the rents coming our way.

[2:06:00] That's a really tough route, excuse my like to talk about the route, excuse in these

[2:06:04] deals.

[2:06:05] That's a tough one.

[2:06:06] So for me, it makes a lot of sense to get the 8.5 in, and then with the 1.5 of your money

[2:06:12] to trail.

[2:06:13] And again, that's a loan.

[2:06:14] So that's going to come back to us at some point.

[2:06:16] It's not just pure subsidy for handing the dollars away.

[2:06:19] We're at least getting, if you think about the person, 15% of it is coming back with

[2:06:24] nominal interest.

[2:06:24] So, again, we're trying to mitigate all these risks, we're trying to enhance the efficiencies

[2:06:29] to invest we can with sort of what we've got.

[2:06:33] If I may, I was envisioning that the social motivated funds were not looking for any kind

[2:06:37] of product, but they were just an investment.

[2:06:42] They could be out there.

[2:06:43] They could be.

[2:06:44] I mean, what tends to happen, and that would be interesting, and Charlie and Shannon's take

[2:06:49] on this, generally speaking, and we're not talking about Wall Street, so when we ruled

[2:06:54] at Wall Street, we're not talking about fun syndicators and the kind of people that will

[2:06:58] go out and say, I'm your investor, but it's really not them. It's all the family offices

[2:07:03] and all the institutional investors behind them. This I think will lend itself to a single

[2:07:09] investor on a direct basis. I mean, I don't want to speak for you all. That's kind of what

[2:07:14] I'm expecting. And I think that would be a cross-harvard on that piece.

[2:07:20] When anything comes to that, I was thinking maybe I must understand the term social

[2:07:24] motivated but I just did cursory Google search of costs are going to be familiar with

[2:07:30] their name attached up to it, but are they social motivated funds were to find that because

[2:07:37] I was thinking more in terms of probably related investments from like a charitable foundation.

[2:07:42] There are two different things.

[2:07:44] So we're, you know, talking to a limited partner investor is putting equity in the deal, expecting a mission adjusted, you know, return on that money.

[2:07:54] And then I think several from now, there's opportunities to raise PRI investment money as well.

[2:07:59] Just a program related investment.

[2:08:03] We actually had that on an early draft, it's not there, I don't know why, but yes, those

[2:08:08] dollars could come in as contribution, that's all it would be.

[2:08:12] I would love some kind of a letter that I'll square it if I may.

[2:08:15] Okay.

[2:08:19] Again, in a sense that we're ready on the timing again, this is a blessing timing of the

[2:08:25] first ten millions.

[2:08:26] Are people comfortable with the staff recommendations?

[2:08:31] And for those of you online, I'm seeing that for everybody actually, if they're one

[2:08:36] administration, they're good.

[2:08:38] Well, uncomfortable so long as everyone needs to spread and ask for a load that helps us understand

[2:08:44] the difference in the cost-harvest type equity fund and the PRI.

[2:08:51] That helps us understand the difference in the cost-harvest type equity fund and the PRI.

[2:08:54] That helps us understand the difference in the cost-harvest type equity fund and the PRI.

[2:08:58] of it. Thank you. I'm Commissioner Corby. I think you may have heard me just for your homework

[2:09:06] assignment. I don't think we want a letter that explains the difference between a commercial

[2:09:11] investor and a socially responsible investor. We want to know that you're looking for the socially

[2:09:15] responsible investors that you have a plan and she might tell us you know when you think it's

[2:09:21] opportunity to chase that money and that you've got a real list, and that you even come

[2:09:27] to all of us in the room here, a variety of things we've got suggestions for you, who might

[2:09:34] be out there with money.

[2:09:36] And then we're going to offer ourselves in.

[2:09:38] And then we have a shared sense, a shared understanding of what we mean by these different

[2:09:42] categories.

[2:09:44] There has been a lot of discussion behind the scenes about this.

[2:09:47] It didn't work its way well into this half report.

[2:09:50] No, no, it's okay. It is mentioned on these subordinates, but those are absolutely thoughts that have been discussed out loud, and that is part of the point.

[2:09:58] Thank you, Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One suggestion on process. Because there's folks online, I really think we should buy for Kate that comes up so that you guys do the town first.

[2:10:10] So they are, they know what's going on with their colleagues in the county.

[2:10:14] And second, a question.

[2:10:16] When do you need the first to?

[2:10:21] For the infrastructure.

[2:10:22] Like on the calendar.

[2:10:24] Well, when when we're at a place where we have a grading

[2:10:27] and erosion control permit and we're ready to start

[2:10:30] and searcher.

[2:10:31] Yes.

[2:10:32] Ideally.

[2:10:33] Brick and ground after brick and ground.

[2:10:35] We're correct.

[2:10:36] OK.

[2:10:37] OK, so that was the majority of both bodies

[2:10:40] on second on the third question.

[2:10:42] The fourth question will the Town of County commit to providing additional $10 million to the project?

[2:10:52] Questions on sugar, Commissioner Berger.

[2:10:55] I'm sharing the question for you.

[2:10:57] So there was, it's been a little frustrating.

[2:11:01] I think sometimes we're getting lost in like your side of how you're financing and really I'd like to simplify this down.

[2:11:10] they're like, what do you need from us? $29,000? It's great. That's really what we need

[2:11:15] to focus on. The question is, at our meeting last week, there was really this issue that

[2:11:24] came off of, what is this $10 million? What can we get from us $10 million? The issue

[2:11:31] to really put a panel on it was, if we collectively want $10 million of ownership units, can we

[2:11:39] get those for that $10 million. And I'm asking you today, can we use that entire 10 million

[2:11:47] for ownership units, the first of ownership years, because I can tell you without having

[2:11:53] the conversation of what we want, it sure would make it easier if you could say yes to that.

[2:12:00] I will say yes to that. And I will say that it will increase the gap on the rental side of the

[2:12:08] ledger, so we'll have to solve for that. So just as a $5 million dollar challenge for

[2:12:15] us to overcome. Thank you, sir. I'm a little tear in my head, I'm a counselor. Thank you.

[2:12:25] Could someone explain to me how we're coming up with this, the first rate of refusal, the

[2:12:34] $275,000 because when I did the math with the land and everything, it appears that it

[2:12:40] actually is more like 400 and some thousand. So why would we be doing them for less? I just

[2:12:46] don't understand that piece.

[2:12:51] Is there a formula for how you figure these things out that I don't

[2:12:55] know about? I guess is my question. Councilwoman Beven, that's $275 is based on what we have,

[2:13:01] of what the market has borne out in the past.

[2:13:04] We were able to sell rights of first rental

[2:13:07] and previous projects at 275.

[2:13:10] I know that you all have been,

[2:13:11] that you've received proposals from other housing

[2:13:14] developers for different amounts.

[2:13:16] We are not asking you to pay for the construction

[2:13:20] of an entire unit,

[2:13:21] we're asking you to invest in a portion

[2:13:24] of the construction of a unit

[2:13:26] and in return receive a perpetual right to rent.

[2:13:31] Could I have a follow-up, Mr. Mayor?

[2:13:33] Certainly.

[2:13:35] So, when you potentially take these out to the public or employers and say, this is

[2:13:41] what we're going to charge for, first try to be fraisled, they're going to have the same 275 or is that,

[2:13:46] does that change?

[2:13:48] Councilwoman Beaman, I anticipate that that will change, depending on who the employer is.

[2:13:55] So for example, if we took this to the library foundation and they

[2:14:00] They were interested in securing some rights of personal for library employees.

[2:14:06] We would be presenting them with the 275 number.

[2:14:10] If we were taking it to a for-profit large business, we would be presenting them with a larger number.

[2:14:20] They're just different products.

[2:14:25] Yeah.

[2:14:26] Can I go back to just something you asked, Commissioner Runner, about the money going towards the first sale?

[2:14:34] you know, in addition to creating a higher burden for us on solving for the rental side,

[2:14:40] you know, we have pause spending on pre-development really wanting to get to gas on this meeting with

[2:14:46] the 20 million. So I think there is obviously a consideration that will be challenging for us to

[2:14:54] continue to put additional capital at risk until we have a lot higher degree of certainty.

[2:15:00] And how we're going to solve for that fight in the ring.

[2:15:04] Commissioner Coleman, thank you, Mayor Durgan. When we now are tackling question number four on the additional $10 million. One of the pieces of the discussion that is important to me is hearing, maybe I'm mishearing it, but I think hearing an expectation that the terms of an unit mix that we're built into the refresher proposal, the RFP, are picked.

[2:15:32] But the financing is not, we're not going to need more money.

[2:15:36] Then there's been, you know, Mr. Putin brought up a little while ago.

[2:15:42] Maybe there is a change in the AMI, a change in the unit mix, even, you know,

[2:15:46] if we're being asked for an additional $10 million, that's an material burden on the public.

[2:15:51] And it may come with some feedback on those kinds of things, AMI and the unit mix.

[2:15:59] And I want to help this project go forward and give you the kind of green light you need.

[2:16:06] But I know I'm not about the corporate, you know, our interest in getting the best possible

[2:16:11] project by saying, well, we're stuck at the RFP numbers when this is a change in the

[2:16:17] way we're doing business.

[2:16:18] And so the RFP is not fixed too many feedback, please.

[2:16:21] I mean, the feedback I would offer you is that we have worked very hard to honor the RFP

[2:16:30] requirements, the desire to serve a wide array of incomes and to ensure that we're still

[2:16:37] serving those households that are between 15, 80% AMI and, you know, between 80 and 120

[2:16:43] AMI.

[2:16:43] I think that's where there's, you know, the highest cost burdened households.

[2:16:47] So I think it's really more of a policy question of which takes priority, right, like ensuring

[2:16:57] that those households are still served, which requires the investment or reducing the overall

[2:17:04] public subsidy and investment and serving higher income households.

[2:17:08] I think we heard from a lot of the public today that there is a real need for continuing

[2:17:15] to honor and preserve those lower AMI households and so that's that's what we're trying to

[2:17:22] ensure from ASICase and at the you know what your bodies want to change that obviously we would

[2:17:30] entertain that for you but you know we're really trying to maintain some level of continuity with

[2:17:37] with what the RFP asks for in the in the vision and I think I would if it's okay I would frame this as

[2:17:45] And, again, people can tell me I'm not characterizing this correctly.

[2:17:49] I think the ask here and their frame it is there's a commitment from you all to provide

[2:17:54] another up to $10 million.

[2:17:56] How you slice and dice that between you, that's a different conversation.

[2:18:00] But to the extent that there is success with these PRIs, or we are successful with these

[2:18:06] subordinate bonds, to the extent we're successful, that would dollar for dollar, reduce the amount

[2:18:12] of additional public dollars coming into the deal. Does that make sense so that the 10 million

[2:18:18] in the second 10 is a commitment. So if we're not successful, maybe up to the full 10, but to the

[2:18:24] extent we are successful, that 10 is reduced incrementally.

[2:18:29] Just to take that next time on and I

[2:18:31] appreciate that is we would also either accept it individually. If you are successful in some of

[2:18:38] the alternative funding, we may still want to invest in it. We still might want to come in

[2:18:42] and investing as part of that 40% number.

[2:18:46] That would be a happy day.

[2:18:49] Okay.

[2:18:49] That's why I appreciate that.

[2:18:52] Yes.

[2:18:52] New ones.

[2:18:54] With that, I'd like to ask and I appreciate it.

[2:18:57] Do you want to be in the hazard hand down?

[2:18:59] Oh, thank you for that.

[2:19:00] Mr. Vivian, how's your deal with that?

[2:19:03] One more question.

[2:19:06] Since it sounds like these first rights of refusal

[2:19:09] are somewhat negotiable rates.

[2:19:10] There's no set formula for them is and I'm not sure who can answer this question one of the attorneys or April.

[2:19:19] Is there an opportunity for us to negotiate more for this extra $10 million that we're potentially giving to get more first rights or something like that?

[2:19:35] I think the short answer is yes.

[2:19:41] Short answer is yes.

[2:19:44] And we could talk about it.

[2:19:47] I think this piggybacks on what Commissioner Gardiner asked earlier,

[2:19:52] which is we're more than willing and able to offer as many rights of

[2:19:58] first rental as you all would desire, so long as it doesn't limit us

[2:20:04] from being able to solve for a $15 or potentially, you know, $20 million gap in the project.

[2:20:10] So we just want to make sure we still retain some level of flexibility and, you know, opportunity

[2:20:17] to secure additional sources of funding. Mr. Mayor, I have one last question.

[2:20:24] Go ahead. Go ahead. I know that we're a long way from the finish line on this,

[2:20:30] done this project. This is kind of just the next big step that we need to take to see what it's all

[2:20:35] going to shake out. Like, what are the odds of you coming back to us and saying, gosh,

[2:20:42] Shannon County, we couldn't close the gap. We need a third, 10 million dollars or anything like

[2:20:48] that. Or is this kind of in your mind the last ask and then Penrose is going to go figure out the

[2:20:54] rest of the gap?

[2:20:57] Yeah, that's that is exactly how we framed it. I mean, we have been here

[2:21:01] Before you all know for two and a half years, I think everybody can appreciate that you know time kills all deals and the longer it takes the more uncertainty we have about the financing for the projects.

[2:21:15] We are here being as transparent as possible about what the need is today to get to a groundbreaking and a closing in this calendar year.

[2:21:24] So, you know, I don't know what gas prices are going to be.

[2:21:28] I don't think anyone else here does either.

[2:21:31] All we have been, you know, able to really commit to is that this is a true partnership.

[2:21:37] There's been a lot of collaboration and consensus building that's been happening.

[2:21:41] We know we have other avenues to go down and to raise additional sources of capital,

[2:21:45] work eager and ready and willing to go and explore that.

[2:21:50] But we have to get to the signed development agreement to evidence to the community,

[2:21:53] the finance community that this is a partnership that we're legally bound together to move this project forward.

[2:22:00] Mr. Ferri, thank you Mr. Mayor.

[2:22:06] I just want to clarify what's happened in points three and

[2:22:11] questions three and four. Then Russ is offering if we're if we're able to be created with our funding

[2:22:17] source. Ten runs is offering 36 rights of first rental for the first 10 million to be split

[2:22:23] between the town and county and $10 million of ownership product for the second 10 million.

[2:22:30] So I would argue that from where we started this meeting, to where we are right now, we're

[2:22:37] in a much better position as funding partners. We just have to figure out creative ways to

[2:22:43] to fund our side to access those rights of first rental.

[2:22:48] So when you ask a question about getting more rights of first rental,

[2:22:52] I would suggest that we should have the conversation first within the next month,

[2:22:58] so that we can figure out that part of the equation of funding sources,

[2:23:03] but recognizing that what's on the table today is ship-fulfill,

[2:23:09] we're getting value for the entire 20 million that we're putting in.

[2:23:13] thank you Mr. Mayor.

[2:23:15] Thank you Mr. Mayor.

[2:23:16] I'll see you guys all back.

[2:23:17] But um,

[2:23:20] I kind of wanted to say that and slightly different framework.

[2:23:23] Again, just

[2:23:25] it, um, you know, forgive me, I've heard what I just heard is

[2:23:29] that you're going to work as hard as you can to find outside financing.

[2:23:32] If you do, that success

[2:23:35] helps reduce the second 10.

[2:23:37] But I don't want to reduce the second 10.

[2:23:39] and I want the county and I think the board agrees

[2:23:42] that we want to absolutely purchase

[2:23:43] five million worth of units.

[2:23:46] And so we don't want to reduce that.

[2:23:49] And then for me personally,

[2:23:51] I believe that we should tap out

[2:23:53] all the possible mitigation fees,

[2:23:55] both what we have now and what comes in in the future

[2:24:00] if they fit in with the timing of the project

[2:24:02] because this is a community housing project.

[2:24:05] And then finally, if we put general funds in,

[2:24:09] We have heard that those can go towards the right of first rental, which is Commissioner Gardner has said if we max out that then we could go between the town and county end up with 36 right of first rentals. So that makes sense to me.

[2:24:24] It's just a matter of if we try and imprint over that the first 10 and second 10 it gets a little more confusing to me.

[2:24:35] I don't want to go too far down the funding source path, but we could potentially use our

[2:24:44] employer's pet farms for the entire same marriage and get all the rights of our

[2:24:49] personal that that would power and all the rights of our show.

[2:24:54] Yeah, which is a discussion for now.

[2:24:57] So I just want to find the phone.

[2:24:59] Um, I'm watching time carefully here.

[2:25:02] I have three other including country or spirit online.

[2:25:06] Um, I just want to try to wrap up getting to a point where we can finish today.

[2:25:11] We've got a couple of people, a couple of commissioners that I know have some

[2:25:14] child care that need to pick up counter spirit.

[2:25:22] Thank you.

[2:25:25] Although we haven't talked about it in this meeting under question four in the staff report

[2:25:31] was the mention of housing authority bonding. And so I want to raise that. And if that needs

[2:25:38] to come up later at the end of the meeting, I just want to bring attention to that as something

[2:25:43] that I'm interested in. Thank you.

[2:25:48] Okay, but I don't like to respond to that.

[2:25:52] We touched on it earlier, where we had the back and forth on the impact investors.

[2:26:00] Do you have some specific questions in addition to that that you wanted us to answer?

[2:26:06] No, thank you.

[2:26:07] I didn't connect the two as impact investors as the housing authority taking out those bonds.

[2:26:15] Thank you.

[2:26:19] Yeah, the social impact investors could come in as investors, I don't know exactly how

[2:26:27] we would structure that to keep our main investor happy, but those dollars could come in

[2:26:31] separate and distinct from a bond purchaser who would, again, I like to say a bond is just

[2:26:36] a fancy forlet over for loan that their money could come in, they could come in as a lender.

[2:26:42] But both options we want to keep on the table, because the more dollars we're successful

[2:26:47] and that that all sets the 10 million that you can choose to put back in that that that that that so we want to keep all of that on the table to the greatest that possible.

[2:26:56] Okay, Councillor Scheker.

[2:26:58] Thanks.

[2:27:01] I guess my point of departure is.

[2:27:07] Sorry.

[2:27:09] No, not at all.

[2:27:10] My point of departure is.

[2:27:12] I want to thank you for your responses to Demons questions.

[2:27:15] and it was really helpful, and it was really clear.

[2:27:20] So I appreciated that.

[2:27:22] Here's where I'm really struggling with this in particular.

[2:27:29] When I went back and looked at the old stock reports,

[2:27:32] it's been almost a year now, and since the $40 million gap

[2:27:36] was first identified, since then,

[2:27:40] from what I can tell, we got rid of $10 million

[2:27:44] dollars by getting a parking garage. And so that was something that was important to these

[2:27:51] boards, but now it's gone. And then somehow another $5 million seems to have been handled

[2:28:00] because you're about $15 million gap right now. And then you're coming to us and actually

[2:28:06] three out of another $10 million. So that's leading $15, $20 million. And my concern is that

[2:28:15] for about a year now, almost a year, there's been an effort to try and find money to plug that gap

[2:28:23] and it doesn't seem to be working. And my concern is, in back in the fiduciary role,

[2:28:31] is is the market sending us a signal that this isn't just not worth it, whether from a debt or equity

[2:28:39] perspective, to be part of this, because it just doesn't seem to be a good deal. And so,

[2:28:46] are we being asked to use public dollars in a way that doesn't make sense from a private

[2:28:52] investors' perspective. And that's where I keep wrestling with this because as the process

[2:28:59] drives out. And when I talk to some developer friends about does it make sense to go into a

[2:29:07] project like this having a gap in the funding, I get mixed comments at best. And so what signals

[2:29:17] are we getting from the market, suspecting that the gap hasn't been filled in a year

[2:29:23] in the only place that seems to be flooded is taking $10 million out by getting rid of

[2:29:28] the parking garage and putting out a $10 million in the public and it still has got a gap.

[2:29:34] So that's where I'm really struggling with right now.

[2:29:38] So just I think it's a bit of a mischaracterization. It's not that we have failed to fill a $15 million

[2:29:43] dollar gap. We haven't started working to fill the $15 million gap. We have stopped the project

[2:29:50] from designing an entitlement standpoint at early September. After we cost share to get through

[2:29:55] the schematic design effort, we got to that stopping point. We said, okay, we feel good.

[2:30:00] These construction cost numbers, either evidence by subcontractors in the market. We, right size, our financing, we worked with your staff to really right size the AMI mix to really try and generate as much revenues we could while staying within the boundaries and the parameters of the AMI restrictions in the deal. And then we said, before we collectively, but certainly for Trenrose, invest another dollar, at risk dollar, in design and entitlements, we need to get to

[2:30:29] development agreement. And part of the development agreement is ensuring that there is additional

[2:30:35] financial commitment from the Housing Authority by sentient to town and county to see the steel move

[2:30:42] forward. And once that happens, then we will get back to work with putting more money into design

[2:30:47] and really going to work to meet with those social impact bond investors, to meet with our

[2:30:53] private capital investors, to meet with funders, to continue to apply for grants which we've been

[2:30:58] doing over the last several months to fill that $15 million yeah. So that's that's the

[2:31:03] work that we really want to get to that's the next step in the process for us. But you don't

[2:31:08] do that unless you get $10 million more dollars out of this for these housing rooms? Yeah it's

[2:31:12] a commitment and that additional $10 million that's unlocking $80 million in conventional debt.

[2:31:19] That's unlocking $25 million in private equity. That's giving us the assurance that we need to go out

[2:31:25] and put in that time and energy and have the conversations with those other impacts social

[2:31:31] impact on investors and others to say, this is a viable project. This has the

[2:31:35] committed pen rows, but also has the commitment of the housing authority as the evidence

[2:31:40] fire development agreement. And we've we've got a goal and we're marching for example.

[2:31:45] But just to clarify, we've put in 30 million, you know, we put in another 10 million in cash,

[2:31:53] We pulled out another $10 million in an amenity that we decided, and that isn't sufficient

[2:31:59] in that sign of commitment from us.

[2:32:03] Again, I think it's part of the, and Charlie, I don't know if you want to go through.

[2:32:07] Take this on.

[2:32:08] One thing I think too that April highlighted in her slides that I think is important is that

[2:32:13] the total subsidy on a free unit basis is in line with what other investments have shown

[2:32:19] in the community.

[2:32:20] And so I don't think that what we're asking for is outside of the bounds of what you have seen before or what you have

[2:32:26] invested. Again, we don't take the request lightly to come to you and ask for an additional 10 million, but it's to

[2:32:32] ensure that those AMI targets that you set as a priority and to ensure that that mix between rental and first sale and to

[2:32:40] ensure that the mix between one, two, and three bedroom households, we haven't deviated from that. So we're really working to

[2:32:46] deliver on your vision. And I think part of that additional 10 million is to ensure that we're

[2:32:51] delivering on that vision. Again, I want to, again, I kind of lost the clock here really carefully,

[2:32:57] so give it a brief. I mean, I can, I mean, unless this is right, well, now we've got, we've got

[2:33:02] 200 people who've listed today. I think that's fine. Okay, um, make sure, folks, that's fine,

[2:33:07] this is the question for John, because these, the, the side of 10 million is the transaction, we're

[2:33:12] getting something for it. So I think that changes the complexion of it's not a donation of $10 million. It's a transaction.

[2:33:20] Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Brooks.

[2:33:25] Give me just a second.

[2:33:28] It looks like we might have to eliminate or eviscerate our housing mitigation program to seem likely to seem like that's going to really require us to focus more and

[2:33:42] make sure that every dollar has a real community benefit and so with that in my help me understand

[2:33:51] if there's a way that with this other 10 million and maybe it's in also a connection with race

[2:33:56] in the MFI that we could address probably the biggest challenge that I've heard from people

[2:34:04] just you know in the neighborhood and around up and down and so forth and that is oh you know

[2:34:11] And this project is just going to benefit big tourism and big global companies and it would

[2:34:19] it be realistic to think about changing the,

[2:34:26] to whom we're going to offer various types

[2:34:28] of property interests to change that so that we don't have pride going to big corporations

[2:34:35] that are just going to buy something and put people in it for six months while they're here to

[2:34:40] do, to do short-term labor. But instead, focus just on the local government that we're going

[2:34:46] to pull out of the separate part. You can focus on the critical service providers, the list that we

[2:34:51] created when we approved housing at the legacy lodge. It's kind of a broad list of critical service

[2:34:57] providers. And then the housing departments criteria and not allow

[2:35:02] how big corporations can come in and house their short-term workers with a public subsidy

[2:35:14] and make sure that we're really doing the most we can to support a social service organizations, education, healthcare, local government.

[2:35:23] And I'm just curious between the 10 million that we're planning to put in for employee housing and maybe tinkering with the MFI

[2:35:31] Is there a way that we could be able to tell members of the public that this is not going

[2:35:36] to benefit more tourism growth, more hotel companies?

[2:35:40] That would be, to me, real valuable.

[2:35:43] And maybe that's a question for April or Shannon or Tim, but I would love to be able to say

[2:35:49] we've taken that off today about putting in extra $10 billion then.

[2:35:55] It's a great question.

[2:35:57] And I...

[2:35:58] So that's it, yes.

[2:35:58] I would say it is we do this all the time. We set preferences all the time. This is a common theme amongst municipalities across the country, you know, if we're going to invest dollars, it's just encounters with me housing authorities. I'll just start referencing.

[2:36:14] Sure.

[2:36:15] That's right.

[2:36:19] The only thing that we ever get concerned about is are we violating fair housing and are we somehow

[2:36:25] uncovering our ability to lease up the project successfully. So long as we aren't creating additional

[2:36:31] burdens on ourselves, we set preferences all the time. And we've been working with County Manager,

[2:36:37] we've been working with the town manager, we've been working with staff to really figure out how do we

[2:36:43] said priorities and how do we have those conversations first with those municipal entities to ensure

[2:36:50] that they're front of the line to have these conversations about rights of first rental

[2:36:54] and setting references is something we do all the time. So that's something we can manage.

[2:37:00] And again, so long as it doesn't get in the way of us leasing in us and generating that very

[2:37:05] essential revenue that we need to pay down our mortgage and to pay for our staff who are going to be

[2:37:11] maintaining the property, we have no objection.

[2:37:15] Gentlemen, are you comfortable with the fair housing loss, allowing us to focus on those

[2:37:21] not working? I am not here in a capacity as a lawyer, however, in terms of offering those rights,

[2:37:29] I don't think there would be any problems, because ultimately the housing opportunities can be made available to

[2:37:35] eligible tenants. They still have to qualify the criteria when their target owns the right

[2:37:40] or the library foundation owns the right. That's still. And I would say we've talked about

[2:37:45] this a little bit and it's kind of in the subordinate bond thing. We had sort of tiered

[2:37:50] it in our discussions. You know, there's the public sector and that would include others

[2:37:55] who I know are doing their own projects, the school district, the hospital district, you

[2:37:59] know, all kinds of people out there. Then we would go for not for profit and their foundations.

[2:38:04] And then lastly, you can see it's tiered out this way in the description of the bond

[2:38:07] purchasers.

[2:38:09] Lastly, it would be for profit employers.

[2:38:11] That's how I sort of envisioned it would come together.

[2:38:14] And to go back to, I forget, who had posed the question off-warning, April talked about,

[2:38:20] and then maybe those are tiered prices.

[2:38:23] Those rights are priced differently depending on who they're being targeted to.

[2:38:28] We could do something similar with the bond purchases.

[2:38:31] I mean, you could have tiered pricing on the bonds.

[2:38:33] How much rights do you get for how much dollars?

[2:38:36] So yes, that could be part of the program.

[2:38:39] That's a little bit beyond the scope of high involvement,

[2:38:41] but that's more of a policy consideration

[2:38:43] if you wanted to give us that direction.

[2:38:45] And to me, that is one of the additional policy questions

[2:38:48] that was tagged by STAC.

[2:38:50] About counter reading.

[2:38:52] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[2:38:52] I know I've been pretty quiet in this meeting,

[2:38:54] but I've been listening very carefully to my colleagues

[2:38:56] and the comments from constituents.

[2:38:59] And as far as issue four about the additional 10 million,

[2:39:01] and I think the process I went through

[2:39:03] is probably similar first to a lot of people out there

[2:39:05] reading about this in the paper.

[2:39:07] There's a factor of sticker shark, you know.

[2:39:09] Oh, it's an additional 10 million.

[2:39:10] Oh, but here they come back asking for more money,

[2:39:13] but as I've learned more about it

[2:39:15] and heard things in the city today,

[2:39:17] my thinking has really gotten a lot more comfort

[2:39:19] about that 10 million.

[2:39:20] First of all, it's important for the public to understand

[2:39:22] that we're talking about a $169 million project.

[2:39:26] So we're getting a good deal of leverage

[2:39:28] for our $50 million investment potentially.

[2:39:31] You know, one of the things that's clarified

[2:39:32] for me this meeting is that second 10 million,

[2:39:34] that's a cap.

[2:39:35] That's not a guarantee it's gonna be an extra 10 million.

[2:39:37] You know, prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

[2:39:41] You know, the worst would be an additional 10 million.

[2:39:43] Something else I learned in this meeting,

[2:39:44] and it was along the lines of Commissioner Gardner's question

[2:39:48] and I heard a county commission meeting

[2:39:50] about the hot off the presses

[2:39:52] that as far as the first 10 million,

[2:39:54] there's an opportunity for the town and the county

[2:39:56] to get further incentives with that first 10 million.

[2:40:00] And something else I learned,

[2:40:01] as far as the second million,

[2:40:03] is there's this question about,

[2:40:03] hey, are we gonna be fighting against each other town

[2:40:05] and county about, well, we want rental

[2:40:08] and we want ownership or vice versa,

[2:40:10] most likely who wants ownership.

[2:40:11] And I'm hearing at the mic, some options for us to use

[2:40:14] or spend money or other money to get the ownership.

[2:40:18] And I recognize that at times,

[2:40:20] you know, there's big questions among these two volumes.

[2:40:23] You know, questions about how that first 10 million

[2:40:24] is allocated.

[2:40:25] And at its worst this body can be like a 10-headed hydra, but at its best if we can find a way

[2:40:31] to row in the same direction on some of these things, we can bring real bang for our

[2:40:36] bucks in community in terms of community housing, which benefits the public, but also in terms

[2:40:41] of town and county employees, who are essential workers that also benefit this community.

[2:40:46] So in short, I'm feeling much more comfortable on issue number four, thank you.

[2:40:50] And I appreciate that wrap up and let's ask the question on the town side are we comfortable with a maximum of 10 million.

[2:41:00] To be determined in terms of the mix.

[2:41:03] The regime and

[2:41:07] again seeing and I'm sorry both Kevin and I have our hands raised.

[2:41:12] Jonathan does not.

[2:41:14] I'm a little confused are we talk we're just.

[2:41:16] So it's not necessarily five and five.

[2:41:22] It's we're going to go back to the with the county after this meeting and somehow hash it out on what that makes is it's not five from the town and five from the county.

[2:41:31] It could be open from the county or what the product might be.

[2:41:37] I'm kidding.

[2:41:38] But yes.

[2:41:39] That's a web.

[2:41:40] Penrose is looking for a commitment that we're comfortable.

[2:41:43] We need two of us going up to $10 million

[2:41:46] for an additional investment in this project.

[2:41:49] Okay, where is our hand again?

[2:41:51] I see four of us, okay with that.

[2:41:55] Thank you.

[2:41:55] And thank you, Kevin, for doing that.

[2:41:58] I do recognize that two of us are gonna have to leave here

[2:42:01] shortly.

[2:42:02] Question number seven.

[2:42:04] Can the county do it?

[2:42:05] Well, I'm sorry, thank you.

[2:42:06] Thank you, thank you.

[2:42:07] Thank you.

[2:42:07] County, raise your hand if you're comfortable with it,

[2:42:10] two, ten, and I seem to read four.

[2:42:14] Okay, bye.

[2:42:14] With a carry-up, my comfort level depends

[2:42:16] upon what it looks like in the end

[2:42:18] if we start to stress us four of those categories

[2:42:22] that we've talked about.

[2:42:23] Yeah.

[2:42:24] Okay, thank you.

[2:42:25] Thank you for that.

[2:42:26] He's not alone, did it.

[2:42:27] Yeah, did it yet?

[2:42:28] Mr. Great.

[2:42:29] Okay.

[2:42:30] Question number seven seems to me to be the one

[2:42:34] that we should probably tackle next. I think the, or I mean, five and six to me are simpler,

[2:42:40] so I'd like it bump that one up. And to give the my colleague that to step out,

[2:42:46] an opportunity to weigh in on it. So the, this is changing the, the providing ranges.

[2:42:55] And we'd like to get started with that. Yes, come to me.

[2:43:00] I'm comfortable with the further separation and unrelated to this just would like for us to consider that in our program overall.

[2:43:13] And yeah, that's listed as a con here. I see it as a lot to address that con and see what that looks like and what that opportunity can present in the program structure at the time that we are reviewing this thing.

[2:43:29] Okay, Commissioner Gerner, I would just say that I think it makes it a little more fair

[2:43:34] and it helps with funding.

[2:43:37] Okay, other comments, questions, or a counter-rear?

[2:43:43] I'm also comfortable to do about the lack of better terms, slicing this along me a little

[2:43:48] more thinly in terms of the bands, giving us more options in terms of financing, it keeps

[2:43:54] a little more fair.

[2:43:55] It's like in terms of the existing bands, if you're, you know, at the bottom of it and you're having to pay more, it creates more options for people that need housing at different price points.

[2:44:08] Okay, other partners.

[2:44:11] Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you for that.

[2:44:13] Thank you. And I'm sorry for being on zoom today. I hate being on zoom, but I had a trip plan to see my 90 year old grandmother before we scheduled this meeting.

[2:44:23] that's why I'm here with her um I have been really trying I have gone back because I was not part of the original decisions to move forward with this the RFP and all the things and I am I just want to clarify so it's initially the town and county added another band to make this project work.

[2:44:46] Correct, and now we're doing another one.

[2:44:50] Councilwoman Beaman, that is not quite correct.

[2:44:54] Okay,

[2:44:56] so we did a housing access study that was updated.

[2:45:00] In 2023, and that housing access study said that households earning up to 163% of median income needed

[2:45:08] health repelling. They needed us to help subsidize their housing. So, and after that study was completed,

[2:45:18] we came to you all in that year's rules and rights update with a recommended addition of the

[2:45:24] of 120 to 160 range to be responsive to that finding in the next study. Does that make sense?

[2:45:33] Okay. Gotcha.

[2:45:34] Yep. And that occurred before, I believe before the RFP went out or maybe they were concurrent, but it was the, the next study was completed before the RFP.

[2:45:46] Okay. So that was independent of this. They just happened to be timed similarly.

[2:45:52] Yes, and this is something that you're saying you were going to recommend anyway down the road for us to consider.

[2:46:00] It's not only to can, it's not only to fill a funding gap. You have a bigger picture for this.

[2:46:06] Councilwoman Beeman, a 40% range is massive. And as we are seeing our incomes separate, it gets even bigger.

[2:46:17] And so, yes, it is something that we plan to bring to you.

[2:46:21] So if you decline to change these income ranges here, we are going to be asking you this

[2:46:28] question again when we bring the rules and rights update to you later this year because

[2:46:32] we think this is the right way to do.

[2:46:35] I believe Mr. Nash, how did you describe a 40% range to me?

[2:46:39] Off market.

[2:46:40] Off market.

[2:46:43] It's pretty big.

[2:46:45] Okay.

[2:46:45] All right. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

[2:46:50] And, and not to be mentioned, please know that we know it's less than ideal online.

[2:46:56] I think you're doing great to get in my attention.

[2:46:58] So I know it's awkward on both side of this question, but thank you for being there.

[2:47:02] I did have a question on this.

[2:47:05] One of the benefits of the broader affordability range is we also have some policies.

[2:47:11] is by choice, not directed by funding sources,

[2:47:16] where if a resident makes more than in that range,

[2:47:20] they would lose their housing.

[2:47:23] That's not an added statement,

[2:47:24] because I can think of a couple projects

[2:47:26] where I thought that that would be.

[2:47:27] Mayor Jorgensen, it depends.

[2:47:30] Right now, for example, I'll use

[2:47:32] Jackie Street Department's or the growth.

[2:47:34] I use the growth, because we own that one.

[2:47:36] We have homes over there that are zero to 50,

[2:47:40] 50 to 80, 80 to 120. We have a household that is in the zero to 50 range this year. And next year,

[2:47:47] they come back and they are in 60% of median income. They're ripple increase to the 50 to 80%

[2:47:54] range. They will not be asked to move out. And then the next home that comes up for rent that

[2:47:59] is available will be categorized in the zero to 50 range. So just back though, if much like

[2:48:05] federal programs, we do not want to penalize households for earning more money until they

[2:48:11] are enough money to get to the market. So that's the way we manage our programs.

[2:48:16] Yes, so when we get into this larger discussion, I think that's something I definitely want

[2:48:19] to make sure that fully, I appreciate that response. And I think that's certainly Michael,

[2:48:24] Councillor Scharker. Yeah, building on the point you just made

[2:48:28] what's a good one. It's certainly these, and this is where I get at the very beginning when

[2:48:33] where I was asking about the opportunity to start integrating some of these things.

[2:48:39] So your response was really helpful, I appreciated it, but there also,

[2:48:46] it gets at some of these end pandemic consequences and trying to understand that

[2:48:51] before I take a vote is really what I've been trying to do,

[2:48:54] all these questions that have been coming before us.

[2:48:57] And I felt like so many of the intersecting complex when such important questions were meaningful.

[2:49:05] So we haven't had the party to really take a look at them and answer all of the secondary

[2:49:09] interstitial year, which is really where these things trip up in the long run, and that's

[2:49:13] why I've been worried.

[2:49:14] So for example, I didn't vote for the $10 million, I guess it raised a number of questions

[2:49:19] for me.

[2:49:20] But still don't answer it.

[2:49:21] Maybe I'd support it maybe I wouldn't, but would the amount of information in time I can't

[2:49:27] buy into it right now, on this particular one.

[2:49:29] My question for you is, at what point

[2:49:33] do you start having a better understanding

[2:49:35] about the income bans in the mix of housing?

[2:49:40] Because if some high percentage of these

[2:49:43] are targeted, for example, to very high A and on it,

[2:49:47] are they going to be, are the kinds of units

[2:49:50] who are offering for those bans going to be

[2:49:53] appeal to those income brackets. These are the kind of questions. So you got it one, which is

[2:50:00] by slicing it finer, what kind of problems does that create, or is it going to make things easier,

[2:50:06] or is it a mixed bag? I'd like to know that, where I go. How do these income bands

[2:50:13] tie a line with the kinds of products they're going to be offering? Because

[2:50:18] is 160% of AMR is a pretty big number,

[2:50:23] and will somebody like that be wanting to live

[2:50:26] and want a better partner?

[2:50:27] Those are the kinds of things

[2:50:28] that a lot of this isn't making clear to me.

[2:50:33] And so the question is,

[2:50:36] at what point in this process,

[2:50:39] yet at all, when you never start being able

[2:50:42] or if it means you were asked

[2:50:43] all these integrated questions?

[2:50:45] Councilor Schecter, I have a couple of responses for you.

[2:50:48] First, I would argue that a person earning 160% may very well only want to live in a one-bedroom unit, they could be single.

[2:50:56] These are at lovely one-bedroom units.

[2:50:58] I mean, again, I think it is we are socially engineering.

[2:51:01] It is dangerous to apply our own values to everyone else.

[2:51:04] And so, to say that, that is why we depend on data.

[2:51:08] And so, Shannon, they've done one market study.

[2:51:12] they will have to do another one once the loop comes online before their

[2:51:15] lenders are comfortable lending to them. You can imagine that a bank is not going

[2:51:20] to lend to a project they do not think is viable, nor are investors going to invest

[2:51:24] in a project they do not think is viable. So we can depend on data. So I'm not

[2:51:28] trying to apply my own values. You're not going to apply your own values. So what we

[2:51:31] think future residents of the development may or may not want me I think.

[2:51:35] Yeah, because I'm asking the question, there's an e-mail, isn't it, that one?

[2:51:39] I understand Councillor Schegger. I apologize. I'm using my thumb as an example too.

[2:51:46] The things that I like, right? So I don't want to apply my own values to anything.

[2:51:53] I've referred it to look at the data, and so we will see another market study.

[2:51:58] Again, the last market study indicated a high demand for all income ranges.

[2:52:04] I think we generally understand this, we have less than 1% vacancy rate in this community,

[2:52:11] which is an unhelp is considered to be an unhealthy rental market. You generally would let's see

[2:52:16] 5%. So to me, at all levels, the extent to which someone earning at the higher or lower end may or

[2:52:25] may not want to live in an infill development is probably specific to the households. I'm not sure

[2:52:31] that I can, I can give you the, the rider into that.

[2:52:33] The green.

[2:52:33] Yeah.

[2:52:35] Counterbeam.

[2:52:37] Thank you.

[2:52:38] Thank you.

[2:52:39] It's just a question.

[2:52:39] What point do you see the, the integration?

[2:52:43] Is it when the market sudden turns off?

[2:52:46] Well, I, I would just say to that, you know, we've done a market study, again, to April's

[2:52:52] point showed, you know, overwhelming demand at every AMI level, I think, probably low vacancy

[2:52:58] rates.

[2:52:58] The market study update is just going to be supported by additional projects and units that have come online

[2:53:04] And it'll be a good kind of reset for you know, where rent should be set and where we could really kind of

[2:53:10] Tronch demand by each of the AMI bands. I think one thing that might be getting lost in this

[2:53:16] Analysis is that shorting the AMI bands actually makes it more equitable across households

[2:53:22] So, if you were in the EDU 120, you can make 119% MFI and you're paying an 80% AMI rent.

[2:53:30] So, now it's more equitable across those bans, which I think is probably healthy for

[2:53:36] the community, but, again, has this other benefit too of allowing us to, again, leverage more

[2:53:42] debt and bring more resources to the project.

[2:53:45] Thank you.

[2:53:46] Dr. Andrew?

[2:53:48] Real quickly.

[2:53:49] Since we're partners in this, I'd be really interested in us splitting the cost of the

[2:53:54] market study so that we can actually all see it this time. I know that almost a year later

[2:54:01] after I asked for it, we got a summary of it, but I'm really interested in that data as we make

[2:54:07] our final decisions moving forward. We have no desire to withhold that information from you and

[2:54:14] would be happy to share the market study with you

[2:54:17] for the confidentiality requirements of that market city,

[2:54:20] whether it's the existing one or the future update,

[2:54:22] and appreciate the offer to cross share on that too.

[2:54:25] Thank you.

[2:54:28] OK, so with that on question number seven,

[2:54:30] don't mean we're done.

[2:54:32] Are we comfortable in the town side

[2:54:36] with the proposal from the staff to change the income band?

[2:54:43] for these three of us here in the room, I see five of us.

[2:54:47] Okay.

[2:54:48] Councilor commission.

[2:54:51] Thank you very much.

[2:54:53] Then I see all of you there as well.

[2:54:55] Okay, great.

[2:54:55] Thank you.

[2:54:56] If I may.

[2:54:57] Yeah.

[2:54:57] Because again, my interest in seeing that change relates to what the type of product that will

[2:55:03] We're not the opposite of what I heard.

[2:55:06] I see that it was connected.

[2:55:09] Okay.

[2:55:11] Keep question number five.

[2:55:13] Especially when it's larger.

[2:55:16] This is one that the staff is recommending to step this up to do this.

[2:55:21] Any questions for.

[2:55:24] It's you.

[2:55:24] We don't have to prevent it.

[2:55:27] Yes.

[2:55:28] Don't hear.

[2:55:29] Mr Mayor.

[2:55:29] the staff report is convincing, compelling, the cons section, I think is correctly stated,

[2:55:38] no downside all upside. I don't think this is going to be a question. And others,

[2:55:43] although in favor of question number five, I recommend our staff. And we're seeing

[2:55:48] on everyone doing that, I believe. The county is also raising their head. Yeah, we're doing it together

[2:55:54] at this point. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:55:58] I didn't even put a conditional, didn't even put a condition on it. Okay, number six.

[2:56:03] I'm so disolver, this is when it's shifted slightly since this effort is a bad idea. Let's not do it.

[2:56:10] Okay, take a look on that. Can we have Jim to take about 45 minutes to explain to that?

[2:56:17] No, I'd be just happy with when. Then we can move on.

[2:56:23] Is there anyone that's interested in pursuing them?

[2:56:25] I'm not seeing it.

[2:56:27] Why, I'd like to know if it's

[2:56:31] lead as well.

[2:56:33] Why is it in your first place?

[2:56:35] I mean, it's just, if it's just locked in this way.

[2:56:37] You've been blamed me.

[2:56:40] Again, I was late to the fraught lady to the party.

[2:56:42] So I asked the question, late.

[2:56:46] There's no harm in taking a hard pass on us.

[2:56:51] And we will try to go back to risk mitigation or finding

[2:56:55] other ways, we will try to build some of the things that we were looking for, or that I was

[2:56:59] suggesting in my role as consultant, that we might get from a subdeveloper position in the deal.

[2:57:04] We'll try to get it worked back in, or pieces that have worked back in through our other roles.

[2:57:09] Not always lost by not having the actual moniker of code developer, subdeveloper, whatever,

[2:57:15] but whatever we want to call it. So, there's still two ways to get benefits. Some of them, yes.

[2:57:20] Yes.

[2:57:20] Okay.

[2:57:22] We've worked through all the questions.

[2:57:24] We had one pin in the town side of question number two.

[2:57:29] So I want to bring it briefly back by any chance given where the discussion is going.

[2:57:34] Is there a comfort in the climate that we accept?

[2:57:38] The recommendations of the discussion that we had with the question number two.

[2:57:43] The hand raising.

[2:57:44] and I'm sure you're being.

[2:57:48] Yep, this meeting was super helpful to me.

[2:57:51] I'm in the same boat as Commissioner Gardner

[2:57:53] that I really came into this meeting

[2:57:55] with some serious questions and some serious pushback.

[2:57:59] And I'm not sure why it took us this long

[2:58:03] to have this clarity of a light bulb moment meeting

[2:58:06] for so many of us, but nonetheless, we're here.

[2:58:09] I think there's still a lot of questions that are unanswered

[2:58:12] And I'm not sure when we or the community are going to get the assurance that we need, but I'm on zoom feeling the sense of the room that my colleagues counting county are ready to move this to the next step.

[2:58:26] And I'm an agreement to keep this moving forward so that we can actually get some hard costs on this stuff and move to the next step.

[2:58:35] I don't want to waste anybody's time because I know we're all feeling rushed here at the end, which I hate feeling rushed.

[2:58:41] But I did not realize until this meeting even with all my questions that you all saw and all the time I've spent on this and truly sleepless nights about it where we were truly at. And I'm feeling a lot more confident today and ready to move on to the next step than I was 24 hours ago even.

[2:59:00] And so I just want to really think to staff and pen rows and everybody and Tim Nash for getting us to this point because I'm, I finally got the full picture today and I really appreciate it. So I'm comfortable moving forward and taking my pen out of that one.

[2:59:23] Okay, so just to verify, I think there are now three of us that are comfortable with the

[2:59:30] second question.

[2:59:32] Okay.

[2:59:33] Okay.

[2:59:35] Counter-Sphere.

[2:59:36] Thank you.

[2:59:36] I'm comfortable as well.

[2:59:39] Okay.

[2:59:40] Great.

[2:59:40] Thank you.

[2:59:41] Could you pull up the motion language, please?

[2:59:45] And I recognize that there are these other policy questions that some of us have been

[2:59:50] having at my senses, we can work that into the discussion going forward.

[2:59:55] This is slightly different than what he did in the SAP report.

[3:00:00] And I think it would be the presentation was sent out earlier, such as to a quick pause. Can we shift the picture so we can read the language there? That's something that. Oh, sorry, I'll see that online.

[3:00:15] Okay,

[3:00:17] thank you.

[3:00:18] Thank you.

[3:00:18] You're welcome.

[3:00:18] Thank you.

[3:00:19] Is there a few of the April 13th?

[3:00:24] Yes.

[3:00:25] The county has a vape here in that afternoon.

[3:00:29] The discussions that we've had.

[3:00:31] We can we can bring this up.

[3:00:33] Tomorrow as well.

[3:00:35] My thought given.

[3:00:37] That we focus on the gym meeting in May.

[3:00:40] It would allow us to have.

[3:00:42] of enough rooms so we get a staff report

[3:00:45] 10 days before this meeting to give us two weekends

[3:00:47] in a week to have a discussion about it.

[3:00:50] And to make sure that our team,

[3:00:52] our legal team, as well as our staff team

[3:00:55] and Penderists, to really make sure

[3:00:57] we're wrapping this up.

[3:00:58] And I don't really feel like it's in our interests

[3:01:00] or short to try to set this up in another

[3:01:05] meeting where we're just real restrooms.

[3:01:08] So my suggestion would be,

[3:01:10] what is the change of anything?

[3:01:13] .

[3:01:14] Oh, boy.

[3:01:16] .

[3:01:18] Tim,

[3:01:21] are you doing that because you're maybe a star strike on?

[3:01:23] No, no, no, no, no, no.

[3:01:27] No, no, no, no, no, no.

[3:01:27] We're doing that for the second and the next line.

[3:01:31] So I know we start work.

[3:01:33] That's like that is the check out.

[3:01:36] That's the last question.

[3:01:37] I just want to again, we've heard at least one opinion about the right first rentals and he might purchase those in my opinion about the AMI mix relative to funding gap will the next meeting be when we try and make final decisions or on that or is is that something that can be put off a little bit longer.

[3:02:04] and that next meeting really will be signing or committing to a development agreement

[3:02:11] that really just puts the amounts in.

[3:02:18] Commissioner Newcombe, you're asking about the type

[3:02:22] of money in and the potential changes to affordability, so those last few questions.

[3:02:30] Yeah, and I guess just as well, Commissioner Gardiner, you know, brought up the max potential

[3:02:39] purchase, if you will, of 36 right of first rentals.

[3:02:42] Would that be finalized at the time? So it is a little bit about money, money in and what

[3:02:48] that money gets. And if there is a sideboard on certain types of money them could be coming in.

[3:02:58] Did you, were you responding to him or did you have a, I, I couldn't tell.

[3:03:02] Commissioner, is that meeting there?

[3:03:03] Well, I, I guess, I think rehab some work as far as the town and county is parsing out

[3:03:09] how, how we're going to split the 20 million or what the funding sources of those 20 million

[3:03:13] are.

[3:03:14] So I, I like the idea that we have two months to do that.

[3:03:17] And I think we can talk about this somewhere in our leadership meeting, but I, I feel like

[3:03:23] the way to do that would be for us to communicate within our own organizations about what funny

[3:03:30] sources may be and then come together as in a general maybe next April term to discuss

[3:03:38] what the percentages would be. As far as the AMLIMIX, I've got, I prefer to leave the AMLIMIX

[3:03:46] alone, so I don't know how we all feel about that, but maybe that's something we can attack

[3:03:53] with the joint agreement.

[3:03:56] Okay. Is there anyone on the town side is willing to make this motion with a May 4th date?

[3:04:07] I'm going to direct an authorize the Jackson Keytime Chairman, Housing Authority of Senate Development Agreement.

[3:04:13] Timeline in the ground on lease auction agreement to May 4, 2046, a report with you and I'll direct

[3:04:22] staff to prepare the suite of documents, the 9th of January and affordable housing,

[3:04:27] 4,000, development per year in consideration at the meeting, May, monthly, June, June,

[3:04:35] 2nd.

[3:04:35] Motion made by Patrick Schecter, 2nd by Hunter Regan, any further discussion by you, the board.

[3:04:44] Others in favor?

[3:04:45] We say aye.

[3:04:46] Aye.

[3:04:47] Motion passed unanimously.

[3:04:48] Thank you.

[3:04:50] Thank you.

[3:04:50] We have second motion by Commissioner Macker second by the Commissioner of the Parliament and your further discussion.

[3:04:57] I'll take a place to act.

[3:04:59] Post.

[3:05:00] Motion carries in there.

[3:05:02] Thank you very much.

[3:05:04] I appreciate that.

[3:05:05] I wish.

[3:05:06] Permission heard.

[3:05:09] Mr. Birmingham, you had a topic you tried to force me into the morning.

[3:05:12] I mean that anyway.

[3:05:13] Is this something you'd like to raise at the point?

[3:05:15] I would love for.

[3:05:16] for visitors to our valley,

[3:05:19] for driving recreational vehicles to have a place to park

[3:05:21] and to productively use the RV facility.

[3:05:28] We're not gonna have troubles in the ground

[3:05:31] and we can make some money

[3:05:32] and provide the service to the public, but we need,

[3:05:34] I think the folks who have their lawyer,

[3:05:38] maybe principals here from the RV park,

[3:05:40] I think they need direction from us and like that.

[3:05:43] Yes, we're gonna do this decision

[3:05:45] So they can take their book in and be a business.

[3:05:50] Mr. Gardiner and then I'll go to the...

[3:05:52] Go.

[3:05:53] Go, go, go.

[3:05:54] So we have to discuss this issue.

[3:05:57] Coutac rock is our bond council.

[3:06:00] We contacted Coutac Rock to talk to them about this issue.

[3:06:03] We actually are leading schedule with them later this week on Zoom to discuss this in more

[3:06:08] detail.

[3:06:08] So here's the basics of a new borrowed mining tax exempt to buy the property, so you must stick to that tax exempt financing.

[3:06:20] As part of that tax exempt financing, you can only make so much money, and so I'm just using broad numbers so you get the idea, but I'll say these are exact.

[3:06:29] But most we can really make on this is 900,000 already made 500, so most you do is 400.

[3:06:38] So we can do this, but we probably have to bless it in the season, so we don't make too

[3:06:44] much money.

[3:06:46] So that's one issue.

[3:06:48] The second issue is there's another RV operator who has approached us and asked if we are going

[3:06:54] you bid this out. And so then that is another issue we need to work through is whether or not we

[3:07:00] will bid this out or if we will be so sourcing the procurement of this service. And so those are

[3:07:06] the two issues that we were going to work on there this week. We didn't really want to work on it

[3:07:09] yet because we were sort of waiting to see how this duty went and then we were going to move on to

[3:07:15] looking at that. Mostly what in the other issue that we're trying to figure out is so how fast is

[3:07:20] all that's going to move and we don't want the operation of the RV park to interrupt the potential

[3:07:27] groundbreaking of the actual project. So that was the third issue. So there was three issues

[3:07:32] that we were trying to work through and we will work through them later this week.

[3:07:36] Okay, thank you. Are you confident you could work through those in time to have that RV park

[3:07:41] available to the public this summer?

[3:07:45] We're going to talk with Kutaf wrong hand. It was Thursday.

[3:07:48] Thursday? Yeah, Thursday. So I really need to check out their bond council

[3:07:51] and get their advice as to how to do this.

[3:07:56] That's what we need to do.

[3:07:57] Mr. Graham is very diligent on behalf of this client.

[3:08:02] He's called all of us.

[3:08:03] We all are fully aware that his client really, really wants to do this

[3:08:07] and then fully makes them.

[3:08:09] But we've sort of been waiting to see what you all did.

[3:08:12] We're waiting on the outcome of this team.

[3:08:15] So I'm taking that you're not looking to...

[3:08:17] You don't need direction from us to continue working out.

[3:08:19] We get the point that everybody really wants us to

[3:08:21] designate a file.

[3:08:23] Okay.

[3:08:24] And I'd love to hear Mr. Perm, thank you.

[3:08:26] Thank you, Mayor.

[3:08:27] We've got a lawyer and a principal here

[3:08:30] if we're capped at $400,000 or $8,000, $9,000

[3:08:36] to avoid getting to both end of it.

[3:08:38] Is that a primary to you?

[3:08:40] As you respond to this question, Mr. Grant,

[3:08:41] please keep in mind that we're effectively done

[3:08:43] with this meeting.

[3:08:44] There is going to be further direction

[3:08:45] among staff and yourself.

[3:08:46] so go ahead and first one. Thank you, Commissioner Carlin and John Graham here,

[3:08:52] from Captain Larson Swift, on behalf of the Virginia and Matt and Stuart here today,

[3:08:57] Ted Stark is usually the local face, but he's out of town traveling. Yeah, we appreciate the time

[3:09:05] and effort that has put it into this. We just were here today to flag for everybody that this is

[3:09:10] you know up to $400,000 that you can use to help close the funding gap we've been talking about

[3:09:16] day and to let you know that we are happy to do it on whatever terms and conditions

[3:09:23] satisfied by council, whether that's a short season, so it's a program daily, not for the same,

[3:09:29] or whether we can make, you know, back in the donations to either the town fund or the

[3:09:34] county fund housing or the housing trust, but if that's too complicated, we're fine to do limited

[3:09:41] it's season, it seems like that's been dealt out of construction too. So we're happy with any

[3:09:47] outcome and sole source for ZARP. We're happy to bid on an RFP. I just don't know how you're

[3:09:54] going to get an RFP out the door, get responses and evaluate it at this point and we're

[3:10:00] cute out to keep you operating because we've done it. But if you want us to bid on it, we're happy

[3:10:07] need to do so. But you have to be transparent. I don't know. That was actually a vision.

[3:10:13] Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would suggest that we have this list of things we talked about

[3:10:18] at the monthly gym in April.

[3:10:22] Anything else? Thank you all for your patience for today.

[3:10:28] I'm pleased with how this played out and would be more in effect there to have the motionary adjournment.

[3:10:34] second motion made by counter-shlector or you made by counter-shlector, second by counter-leagant

[3:10:39] although you can favor please say aye aye motion passes that can be time to remain happy draw off

[3:10:46] motion passes and now I'm here with the William and Brooks motion passes thank you guys

[3:10:50] all right thank you motion can bring your props thank you so I'll bring your gardener I'll favor

Mar 09, 2026 Special Town Council Joint Information Meeting

Agenda

Transcript