They are asking to continue negotiating until May. Here the memo and City – Negotiating Team Report Appendices 11.3.14″>attachments and highlights.
So, the highlights I gleaned from reading the documents:
– The City Negotiating Team recommends that the Common Council authorize negotiations to continue with JDS Development LLC based on the recommended developments concepts presented in this report and to direct the City Negotiating Team to present a final development term sheet to the Common Council for consideration by May 1, 2015.
– Objectives the negotiating team and Edgewater Developers are:
1. Move the hotel tower away from the east side of the MMB. Simplifying the development by removing the extensive interface with the Madison Municipal Building will drive down cost. This will increase the building massing somewhat on Pinckney Street, however.
2. Maintain the quality urban design elements of the project. The RFQ/RFP objectives to screen parking from view and to use quality building materials and superior design to improve the streetscape of Pinckney Street and also be compatible with the structures around the project should be a focus for any City investment.
3. Reduce the number of hotel rooms. A 300 plus room hotel is larger than the market can support without significant public assistance. The developer believes the market supportable hotel would be sized in the 200 to 250 room range.
4. Design the hotel to allow for its future expansion. Building a market supportable hotel now will reduce the city’s financial participation. Providing for the expansion of the hotel in the future when the market will support it will allow the City’s goals to be achieved on a more efficient and affordable basis.
5. Modify the required room block. A smaller hotel will provide a smaller room block for Monona Terrace. The smaller room block however will provide immediate benefits for Monona Terrace and allows a phased attainment of the desired additional 250 room block over time.
6. Downsize the meeting and civic spaces in the hotel. By downsizing the majority of the civic spaces and meeting rooms from the Base Plan for the hotel, a significant portion of the City’ required investment can be removed.
7. Commit to a hotel brand to meet the needs of today’s connected traveler. By
positioning the retail/restaurant/wellness components (typical in a traditional full service convention style hotel) of the mixed use project in a way that supports an urban style brand, additional development costs associated with a full service hotel development can be avoided.
8. Keep Block 105 uses as presented with the exception of the large loading dock.
Eliminating the large consolidated loading dock on Block 105 will reduce cost.
9. Maintain the bicycle center in Block 105. The bicycle center was a required element in the RFQ/RFP.
10. Provide an affordable option{s) for the Parking Utility’s replacement parking.
– Two options they are presenting are:
An urban mixed use hotel with 200-250 rooms – These hotels are designed for urban markets to meet the needs of today’s connected traveler . The hotels are focused on style,technology and engagement and feature innovative concepts in architectural and modern hotel design, and great dining and nightlife. Brands that typify this type of product are Radisson Blu, W and Aloft.
A limited service hotel with 200-250 rooms – These hotels offer a very limited amount of on-site amenities and often only offer basic accommodations with little to no services. Limited service hotels often lack an on-site restaurant but in return may offer a limited complimentary food and beverage amenity such as on-site continental breakfast service. Examples include Hampton Inn, Holiday Inn Express and Fairfield inn.
– How much will it cost?
Original Plan: $47.2M City investment
Urban Mixed Use: $18.2 – $21M City Investment
Limited Service: $9.9 – $13.6M City Investment
– Recommendations
The City Negotiating Team believes the urban style mixed use hotel solution of 200-250 rooms with future expansion capability as described in this report is the most prudent approach for the project.
. . . the City Negotiating Team recommends that it be directed to continue negotiations with JDS Development LLC to bring forward a Final Development Term Sheet for Common Council consideration by May 1, 2015 to include the following elements:
1. Additional market information on the proposed hotel sizing;
2. Project site and land assembly;
3. Detailed description of each of the project components including the owner, funding source, primary development responsibility and operational responsibility;
4. Preliminary design of the project with input from the City’s Landmarks and Urban Design Commissions;
5. A study of shared parking opportunities to determine whether further economies can be achieved with the parking required for the project;
6. Project costs and sources of funding, including the a complete financing plan for the Government East Ramp replacement;
7. Project sequencing including the pre-development and development phases; and
8. Additional responsibilities of the parties including the requirements previously set forth in #RES – 14-00161 adopted by the Common Council on February 25, 2014.
