The committee voted unanimously to support the staff reocmmendation of the GEbhardt/Metcalfe Proposal for 800 East Washington, but not before adding a bunch of instructions for staff in their negotiations with the developer.
I attended the meeting, this is a brief explanation of what happened. Few people spoke, the committee discussion was less than an hour. While they say it was really close and a tough call, apparently the union issue wasn’t enough to tip the committee members. Here’s Marsha Rummels Notes on the contingencies the committee added to accepting the Gebhard/Metcalfe proposal:
The committee selected Gebhardt/Metcalfe unanimously. The committee added an additional recommendations.
1. Keep CD Smith in the second position in case negotiations with Gebhardt fail.
2./3. The committee asked staff to include two sustainability elements from the extras list: incorporate Passiv Haus standards in all owner occupied units (instead of one) and to incorporate a ‘large research production farm with greenhouse elements and stormwater collection irrigations system”.
4. 45 units out of 262 proposed will be affordable for 15 years at 50-60% area median income.
5. Add a commercial broker to the development team.
6. Card check neutrality for all commercial tenants.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Labor Attorney for UFCW Local 1473 from Milwaukee WI spoke on their behalf. Handed out letter that contradicted Metcalfe’s claims of working things out. The letter from June 2012 urges employees to vote no on the union.
CD Smith had two people speak, they say that the suggestion to waive the parks fees was in the initial proposal due to the open space in the project and that has changed since then. Their TIF request is on $6.9M and that was misreported. The public-private partnership proposal they have done in several other cities and is not that complicated. They say they will use local suppliers. They talk about their financing being real and offer to verify that with the banks.
One person from the Tenney Lapham Neighborhood, Richard Linster shows up in support, not representing the neighborhood association. Says it will be a powerful magnet to bring people to the neighborhood. Says Gebhardt works well with the neighborhood.
4 others registered in support.
QUESTIONS
Bridget Maniaci moves recommendation of staff.
Lauren Cnare wants to ask questions – they argue about process, there is no second to the motion.
Cnare asks CDSmith about the parking garage, she is concerned about inheriting a parking garage that needs repairs.
CDSmith representatives say that TIF pays for the parking, the parking revenue bond buys the parking ramp and then its owned by the city entity. In this case the $6.9M TIF covers the cost of parking, the payments from the residents pay for more than 100% of costs and paying off the debt. They pay off debt, capital replacements and reserves and operating expenses and at the end the city gets the cash flow and owns the ramp. They don’t want the ramp sold to them for $1, either the public should own it or they want to buy it back at market rate. They want to maintain it and keep it clean for the people that use their building.
DISCUSSION
Maniaci makes the motion again, to recommend staff recommendation to do the Gebhardt proposal. This time the motion is seconded.
Maniaci says it was a thorough, fantastic experience that meets the goals that they set out when they bought the property, especially given where the neighborhood was a year ago. What gets shovels in the ground, what gets what the city wants and what do her constituents want is what she is looking at. She tells the committee members to look at what the neighborhood association put together, they were quiet clear about size of grocery store. She says there is a simplicity of the proposal that she supports given what it takes to get something in the ground, especially with federal money and remediation – she has seen what happens when they pick a project and it doesn’t happen. There are many months of discussion yet to be had, she isn’t a fan of the townhouse part of the project. Thinks a couple proposals really looked at all the work over the years. Hates to see local businesses pitted against each other. TIF is reasonable amount given that they will continue to negotiate, she says round 1 was a success and wants to see it continue to grow. Housing mix and size of grocery store is really good in this project. This proposal is visionary and realistic, likes the UW partnerships, we need to do more of that. Like BioAg, we need that to make it happen. She can’t urge them enough to go with this, staff and neighborhood support it.
Mark Clear makes amendment, CD Smith as contingent, so if negotiations are not successful then staff can negotiate with CD Smith without further action by the committee – Maniaci says that is friendly.
Maniaci asks if the staff needs parameters for negotiation, we have the letter from the neighborhood.
Dan Rolfs, staff to the committee, says letter form neighborhood and discussions are good but if you want to be specific that is fine.
Cnare says the motion could contain info from Gephardt from yesterday, the Passiv Haus standards for all owner occupied units and the rooftop farm – those were two of the highlights, so she wants that in the motion.
Marsha Rummel says that affordable housing component should be defined to be 30% of the income, they should try to get some definite thresholds for affordable units. They said they would have units but don’t say how many, Rummel says it has to be more than a token.
Maniaci says that a portion of the affordable units in the Constellation was in the tax credit deal, they had to be offered but if no one took them up the offer goes away. We need more than an offer, it has to be done. She would leave it as a negotiation and discussion point but would like to see a guarantee on the affordable units, 5 years? 15 years, or 10 years?
Rummel says they need to say something about the labor dispute, she believes in living wages – during the first round they heard that the jobs in a grocery store were not good jobs, but she heard Mr. Metcalfe say he was open. She was disappointed to see where they were agitating against a union, she wants a neutrality clause, really this isn’t what we want to do, hopes Metcalfe’s can work it out, but at some point she embraces community benefits for the workers and community at large and wants that to continue.
David Wallner says that he and Joe Lusson are from Tenney Lapham Neighborhood and this has been the hardest to decide, lots to admire about the proposals, not much to hang my hat on about which is the best of the three, appreciates the teams came to neighborhood meetings. He just wants to see it started – thanks them all for coming out to lots of neighborhood meetings – he hopes they will get it done.
Joe Lusson agrees with David Wallner, it’s been really tough and supports the Gephardt proposal, they hit a home run with the proposal and he fully endorses the 2nd runner up if anything should go awry, and all three he hopes they come back and do something on East Washington Ave. The labor dispute is upsetting, he is willing to go ahead either way, one of the issues was Metcalfe’s high regard in the community and hopefully the labor dispute will be resolved, he wants to see the neutrality clause. The condos are a big important thing, that is an improvement. The height, the community is excited about the height, he would like to say it was architecture, not convinced the architecture is thrilling but that will get worked out in the process. The roof top farm should be bigger, would like to see more of that.
Michael Soref from the Marquette neighborhood says if it were up to him, he might have picked the Smith proposal, that is why he supports Clear’s amendment. He doesn’t think the one proposal is very attractive, thinks the TLNA might be not be well served by the block that looks like that, hopes Gebhardt works with the neighborhood on this. He also thinks the construction financing is stronger, they have a stronger past record of development, some part of the Smith proposal is very well thought out, he likes the shade analysis. He says he brought the issues up and it didn’t change anyone’s mind, but the Marquette neighborhood supports Gebhardt, but he is also concerns about what Marsha saus about labor issue.
Sean Dilwig talkeed very softly and was hard to hear. He wants to know if they are going to leave the affordable housing squishy.
Maniaci says they are making it less squishy.
Rummel says something I didn’t hear.
Tom Langraf asks if it would be reasonable to give staff a target on the affordability – the definition of affordability is probably a better definition than the term.
Rummel asks if 20% at 80% CMI for family size would be right, she says that is about market rate.
Langraf says that it is usually 20% at 80% CMI.
Rummel says that is not affordable, they have to make $15 per hour.
Langraf suggests 60% AMI, that is the high end for the tax credit. He suggests that as a threshold – to Sean’s point, he is a fan of affordable housing, it is squishy, should have a target or range for staff to work with.
Maniaci says they have on page 6, they have 45 units which is 20%, there should be no less than that. Then it is a question of 50% or 60% CMI? At least looking at other projects it is a healthy mix, it’s not section 8, it’s not really affordable housing, it is workforce housing and it serves the neighborhood well.
Langraf sums up where they are at, they move the staff recommendation on Gephardt, with amendment to go to Smith if something happens, Cnare added the provisions of sustainability items in the April 8th letter, 2nd page, priority list included as guidance for staff, and all owner occupied units with Passiv Haus and the rooftop farm are two biggest issues, Rummel defines affordability, threshold numbers in original proposal and the 50 – 60 CMI ranges by family size are preferred, for 15 years.
Cnare asks staff if there are any concerns about having all their eggs in one basked, all the same development team and second she doesn’t see commercial leasing agent in here – credible person on team is needed.
Maniaci says she wants it required. There is significant commercial space and the market is not strong, esp. cuz of phasing of the project.
They agree to add that.
Rummel urges staff to figure out card check neutrality issue – Metcalfe is not the developer but she wants that to be stronger. They cannot actively oppose unionizing.
Clear asks if that is for all commercial tenants, yes says Rummel.
Langraf asks about Clear amendment – we have a lot of “like to haves” – do we want to copy that over if have to go to Smith, that the same applicable items apply to them as well.
They agree.
Cnare thanks everyone for their hard work. Hopes more land in the city to do their projects.
After less than an hour of public testimony and comments from the commmittee, they reach unanimous decisions to go with the Gebhardt proposal with conditions.
WHAT’S NEXT
The negotiations between city Real Estate staff and the Gebhardt team starts today. When both sides come to an agreement, a letter of intent will be signed and presented to the Council for approval.
