Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-29 Business and Economic Development Committee Minutes � BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE � June 29, 2005 Minutes � Councilor Attendance: Tremble, Allen, D'Errico, Hawes, Stone, Farrington Staff Attendance: McKay, � 1. Discussion of Affiliated Healthcare Systems project at former Army � Reserve Center. 1 EMHS provided development plans for the Committee's review. McKay indicated that the development agreement requires that the Business and Economic Development Committee review and approve the plans. Rob � Frank from WBRC addressed the committee. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the plan. I 3. Jenkin's Cleaning - Amendment to the lease agreement for o�ce space at 39 Florida Ave. Councilor Stone suggested this item be taken out of agenda sequence. � Bolduc said this is an e�ension of a current lease agreement. A motion was made and seconded to approve the lease agreement for an additional 1 year. � 4. Bangor Truck Equipment - Community Development Business Development Loan Application. � McKay indicated this is an application for a $50,000 through the federally funded Communiry Development Business Development Loan program. He stated that the application process and the basis of the loan can be 1 discussed in open session but any proprietary business information needs to be discussed in executive session. A motion was made and seconded to approve staff's recommendation to issue the loan. ' S. Executive Session: Bangor Truck Equipment - Community Development Business Development Loan (If necessary) � This item was not necessary. � 2. Penview Associates - Request for a One Year Extension and Amendment to Option Agreement for Belvedere Condominium Waterfront Project � McKay indicated that the City has a development agreement with Penview Associates for the development of condominiums on Bangor's waterfront. � The initial term of the agreement extended through December of 2004 with a provision providing a six-month extension, which was requested and granted by the Council. Penview has now asked for another , extension of one year. The original proposal was for between 28-32 � condominium residential units, a 4-story development with parking � beneath. Plans were approved by the City back in the early spring. Penview has concluded that the cost of the project as designed would be in excess of what the units would market for and are now proposing to � change the development and need additional time to do so. Russell, Penview's attorney, indicated the project had been put out for bids, bids were received and a potential contractor was selected. Unfortunately, ' that contractor was unable to become bonded. In March, refinements were made to the document and put out for bid again. In May, a new contractor was chosen. Construction costs have considerably increased � since the project was designed in 2003. The original plan was far greater than what the required minimum investment was under the option , agreement which was $5.35M. They are looking at various avenues to reduce the cost to make the project come into line. Penview is waiting for a loan commitment. The appraiser needs cost estimates before � completing the appraisals, which has now been completed. Ames Engineering has reviewed four concepts in an attempt to keep the integrity of the project but to reduce construction costs. Ultimately, the � number of units have been reduced to 28, redesigning, deleting some amenities. A contractor has been lined up. All of the information will be submitted to the appraiser with the hopes that the appraiser will come in ■ at a higher number thereby increasing the loan commitment and a decreasing the amount of investor equity in the project. Russell reviewed the amendment request which would extend the term of the option to � June 30, 2006, an adjustment for soft soil, change the construction schedule to coincide with the June 30, 2006 date. Three provisions of the � agreement required submissions to the City prior to exercising the option: a building permit, evidence of financing, and a construction contract. Russell suggested that instead of having to do so before exercising the � option that it be amended to read before cfosing The remainder of the agreement would stay as is. An architect from Ames reviewed the revised plans in detail. Allen discussed materials being used for the project. ' Tremble asked McKay about another proposal for Railroad Street which is using a different type of material. In developing the waterfront, Tremble feels there should be uniformity in materials. McKay said they are looking � for compatibility of materials for quality projects that fit in with the development plans. Barrett said most project renderings for the waterfront have been in brick, which ties the downtown and the � waterfront. Stone talked about the original agreement of two years ago. He said he would fike to see progress prior to the new extension date of June 30, 2006 or to "pull the plug" on the project. Heitmann said the , amended agreement could include a start date. In response to Stone, Heitmann said if the Committee recommends and the Council approves � the e�ension the staff and developer would negotiate a figure that would be included in the amended extended development agreement. The average price per unit is $400,000. With the revised plans of 28 units, � Russell said the practical demand for parking is 52 spaces. Also 8-12 spaces are needed for guests. On site, there are only 44 spaces so are , � deficient in that area. Russell would like the City to consider making the � existing City parking lot part of the development project. Allen asked staff if this particular space is valuable during certain waterfront events. McKay said the spaces are primarily used by existing businesses in the area. , Other commercial properties use the existing parking. There is another development proposal before the City, which will require parking. He indicated there is a current shortage of parking. McKay would not � recommend conveying the existing parking lot to the condo developers. The City does have a waterfront parking analysis. Heitmann pointed out � that the Committee is free to go into executive session at any point to negotiate specific issues. The architect pointed out the need for prospective tenants to have more than one parking spot per unit. ' A motion was made and seconded and the Committee voted to go into executive session under the provisions of 1 MRSA 405.6.C. to discuss negotiations for the ' disposition of City property. No Committee action was taken following the executive session. � The meeting ended at 7:00 PM � � ' � ' � � � � � ,