Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2018-08-21 Special Joint MDC
Meridian City Council Special Joint Meeting Agenda – August 21, 2018 Page 1 of 1 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hea ring, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. JOINT MEETING OF THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AND MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 4:00 PM Meeting Rooms A&B City Hall 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 1. Roll-call Attendance: City Council X Anne Little Roberts X Joe Borton X Ty Palmer X Treg Bernt __X___ Genesis Milam __X___ Luke Cavener X Mayor Tammy de Weerd Meridian Development Corporation Board __X__ Dan Basalone __X__ Rob McCarvel __X__ Nathan Mueller _X__ Rick Ritter __X__ Keith Bird __X__ Diane Bevan __X__ Tammy de Weerd __X__ Steve Vlassek __X__ Dave Winder – Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted 3. Presentation, Discussion and Recommendation of Old Meridian City Hall Proposal from the RFP Committee 4. Consideration and Approval of Recommended Old City Hall Proposal [Action Item] Continued to August 28, 2018 Adjourned at MDC RFP OLD CITY HALL STATEMENT: Respondent accepts and agrees with all the terms and provisions of the RFP and any addendum(s) and specifically acknowledges receipt of the following addendum, if any, to the Request for Proposals which addendum have been considered by Respondent in submitting this proposal (if none, state “NONE”): Addendum No. 1 Addendum No. 2 Submitted by, RESPONDENT’S BUSINESS NAME (type or print) By: (signature in ink) Date: Name: (Print) Title: Bus. Address: Phone: Email: Note: If respondent is a corporation, give State of incorporation; if a partnership or joint venture, give full names of all partners or joint venturers. Respondent declares under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct X X NOVEMBREWHISKY PROPERTIES, LLC JOSHUA EVARTS JULY 25, 2018 MANAGING MEMBER 77 E IDAHO AVE MERIDIAN, ID 83642 208-631-9229 JOSHEVARTS@ME.COM DEV PARTNER - CALEB ROOPE, THE PACIFIC COMPANIES OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 1 Proposal Cover Sheet Meridian Development Corporation RFP Name of Entities Making the Proposal: The Pacific Companies & Novembrewhisky Properties, LLC Name and Title of Individual Authorized to Act on Behalf of the Individual/Entity and who is signing below: Joshua Evarts Managing Member, Novembrewhisky Properties, LLC Caleb Roope President, The Pacific Companies Our proposal relates to the following subject property or properties (Check those that apply): OLD MERIDIAN CITY HALL 33 E Idaho Ave, Meridian, ID 83642 By signing this Cover Sheet, I understand and agree on behalf of myself, if submitted by an individual, or on behalf of the company/corporation, if submitted by an entity, that this proposal is good for 90 days, that I/we will conduct any negotiations in good faith with MDC and that MDC has the complete discretion whether to select or reject a proposal and/or any alternatives contained therein and accept or reject any agreement prior to the full execution of an agreement resulting from this RFP. Name: Caleb Roope Joshua Evarts Title: President, Pacific Companies Managing Member, NWP, LLC Date: July 25, 2018 July 25, 2018 Signature: OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 2 July 25, 2018 Meridian Development Corp (MDC) Attn: Ashley Squyres 33 E Broadway Ave Meridian, Idaho 83642 208-477-1632 RE: RFP Response Ms. Squyres, Thank you for the opportunity to present the enclosed RFP response to MDC for the property located at 33 E Idaho Ave, Meridian, ID 83642. As MDC is aware, my wife and I have been working towards this response since 2013. Our journey began with the acquisition of the Heritage Building (77 E Idaho Ave) in 2013 and subsequent restorations and courting of successful, impact tenants over the past 5 years. In 2015, we acquired the Bank of Meridian building (140 E Idaho Ave) and partnered with MDC on its complete restoration. This project resulted in a rich historical asset for our downtown and an Orchid Award from the Idaho Historic Preservation Council in 2017. In 2016, we successfully responded to the RFP solicited by MDC for the development of both 703 and 713 Main Street. That award, and our existing Development Agreement, was the catalyst for the past 2 years of research, partnership building, and planning that has uniquely positioned our team to: • Present a development concept for our downtown that includes: o A mixed-use development project consisting of two buildings that are each four floors high o Total construction of 120,987 s.f. (15,700 s.f. of Retail/Office & 105,287 s.f. of Residential) at a projected investment of $20M o 103 Residential Apartments (55 1-Bedroom Units and 48 2-Bedroom Units) o A parking plan of 105 onsite parking stalls, and an additional 46 spaces optimized for use on Idaho Ave o A development team with the experience and resourcing needed to immediately begin the project and deliver success in less than 24 months with all requisite financing capacity secured OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 3 It is exciting for our entire team to respond to this RFP and make the case for what will be a ‘catalyst’ project in Downtown Meridian. We propose this project in alignment with Destination Downtown, the MDC Revitalization Plan and the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian. With a shrinking amount of land in our downtown, the ONLY option for true renewal and growth is to go VERTICAL. Mixed use developments, that support ground floor retail and significant residential living on the upper floors, must be pursued to change the dynamics in our downtown as a destination and community for the kinds of businesses and residents that will drive future value for the entire downtown district. Our collective commitment has always been to complete transparency. We intend to present all our budgets (including projected fee) to the City of Meridian for this project. We will ensure the City of Meridian is compensated for a Fair Market Value of the proposed site being offered in this RFP. In a market of increasing construction costs and rapid growth, we want to ensure success for all parties invested in our collective efforts to prosper our City Core. Thank you for all your hard work in making this possible. We look forward to the continued journey! Cordially, Joshua Evarts, Managing Partner Novembrewhisky Properties, LLC 77 E Idaho Ave, Ste 300 Meridian, Idaho 83642 208-631-229 OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT NARRATIVE 5 CONCEPT – SITE PLAN 8 PARKING PLAN 10 DEVELOPMENT SPECIFICS 11 SITE PLAN & ILLUSTRATIONS 13 INGRESS/EGRESS FOR VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS 13 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 14 DEVELOPMENT COST SUMMARY 14 FINANCING PLAN 14 SOURCES AND USES TABLE 14 DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE 15 COMPARABLE PROJECTS 16 PACIFIC COMPANIES CURRENT PROJECTS 18 THE TEAM 25 EXHIBIT A - FINANCIAL PRO FORMA 26 EXHIBIT B - ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL OVERVIEW 27 OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 5 Project Narrative The vision for “Destination: Downtown” focuses on Meridian’s slogan of “Built for Business – Designed for Living”, embodying the community’s character as a sophisticated, family-friendly city in the heart of the Treasure Valley. As urban sprawl and economic development has exploded on Eagle, Overland, Chinden and Ten-Mile Roads, our downtown has lagged behind. We believe this is a direct result of a lack of residential density that would support the kind of 24-7 activity required for us to support mixed commercial activity and the introduction of new restaurants, businesses and specialty retail that will create economic growth in our downtown. This activity also promotes growth and continued economic benefit to existing downtown businesses in the City Core. However, any development or project in our City Core must maintain traditional architectural themes while infilling existing developments and maintaining the character of our downtown. In recognizing the size and complexity associated with the kind of project that needed to be delivered on this site, I brought the Pacific Companies in to lead our Team. With the completion of eight new multifamily housing developments in 2016, the Pacific Companies’ total assets are in excess of $1.39 billion. The company’s portfolio performed very well with overall occupancy of 97% and debt service coverage of 1.40. This made them the ideal choice to partner with for this project. Based on the Downtown Meridian Housing Study, published in 2014, “Downtown Meridian can support up to 488 multifamily and condominium residential units through 2025 (~40 units per year). The current occupancy rates for both types of housing are very high (above 94%) and there are few new projects in the pipeline that will change that occupancy rate significantly. Furthermore, historical and projected population and employment growth yield a continued demand for new housing.” This is consistent with a current existing housing project that the Pacific Companies is developing in Meridian (Prelude at Paramount). While completion is not scheduled until Fall of 2018, they have already secured a waiting list of 100 families and are fielding 60-75 calls per week. These data points support our view that a residential approach to this project is both prudent (fiscally) and strategic for urban renewal of our City Core. Our proposed project accomplishes an increase in downtown housing, while delivering more premium retail spaces that are built for economic growth. This development site encompasses the existing properties at 703 and 713 Main Street in Meridian (currently under a Development Agreement with Novembrewhisky Properties, LLC), and the offered 33 E Idaho Ave site. The project consists of two structure to be built at opposite site corners with requisite parking being programmed and developed in between. This supports the goal of developing a continuous urban edge and encouraging walkability in our City Core. OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 6 The elevation above is looking at the site from the corner of Main and Broadway. This corner represents the property currently under agreement with MDC and the building in the background would be developed on the City Hall site. The architectural strategy is to provide the visual bridge between the modern new City Hall to the south and the historic Heritage Building to the north. We accomplish this through the use of brick finishes and classic glazing, while offering a more modern corner feature to promote the visual entry into our downtown from the South that is visible from Main Street. OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 7 Our development team consists of Novembrewhisky Properties, LLC and the Pacific Companies. Their respective value additions and roles are described below: Novembrewhisky Properties, LLC The Pacific Companies Current owner of the Main and Broadway site and Heritage Building that comprises 50% of the existing corners on this development block A privately-held group of firms established to deliver all the real estate specialties including feasibility analysis, development, design, finance, construction, and asset management. Joshua Evarts (Managing Member) serves as the Vice Chairman of the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission (2 years’ experience) and runs three successful businesses based in Downtown Meridian. Responsible for architectural design inputs to maintain historic elements for this project A vertically integrated organization that allows ONE team to manage every aspect of this project; from initial feasibility analysis, to finished product, to ongoing management. Having all necessary disciplines under one roof, we’re able to move with knowledge and agility to create highly-valued outcomes for our stakeholders. Responsible for all related commercial leases and recruiting strategic business into our City Core Year-end portfolio leverage was 60%, which is low in comparison to our peers. As a continued hedge against unforeseen challenges, we again reported unrestricted liquidity in excess of $15 million and more than $75 million in property-level cash and reserves. Responsible for all communication with city partners, downtown business partners, media and prospective commercial leasees OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 8 Concept – Site Plan This entire block was surveyed by the Pacific Companies in the Fall of 2017 in preparation for this proposal. In conducting this survey, we were able to maximize the footprint of our proposed site plan, including structure, parking and easements. This site plan supports: • A mixed-use development project consisting of two buildings (A&B) that are each four floors high • Total construction of 120,987 s.f. (15,700 s.f. of Retail/Office & 105,287 s.f. of Residential) • 103 Residential Apartments (55 1-Bedroom Units and 48 2-Bedroom Units) • A parking plan of 105 onsite parking stalls, and an additional 46 spaces optimized for use on Idaho Ave (angled parking shown on the north side of the development) Existing easements to all four bordering streets will be maintained in this project to ensure access to all properties on the site. NOTE: Our team has been in contact with both First Interstate Bank (FIB) and the property owners (PO) of the building directly south of the Heritage Building (located in the NE corner of OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 9 the block). FIB is open to supporting this programming of parking that meets the collective need of the block. We are in ongoing discussions with the PO group to acquire their assets to add to this project. These discussions have become a challenge to a recent death of one of the owners. However, this will not deter us from our proposed project. If we are able to secure these properties prior to construction, we would add a third building (C) to the site plan as reflected below. This would add over 42,000 s.f. to the project and 16 more parking spaces. OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 10 Parking Plan One of the challenges in developing any downtown block is the existing programmed parking and the balance between building square footage and surface parking. We have a solid plan to program the parking needs as referenced in the Site Plan above. We believe that the parking programmed for is sufficient to meet the needs of all occupants and is a net increase to the site. In conversations with MDC, we are aware of efforts being made to develop a parking site on the UP property across from City Hall on Broadway Avenue. Our team is excited to be involved in these efforts to secure this additional asset in such close proximity to this development site. OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 11 Development Specifics Our project is designed specifically to address the goals of MDC and urban renewal in our City Core. We accomplish this as follow: MDC Goals Proposed Project Strengthening the economic base of the area and community and stimulating new commercial expansion, employment and economic growth. 15,700 sqft of leasable commercial space that is intimately aligned with the vision of Destination Meridian. Creation of the first mixed-use, high-density, residential living concept in downtown Meridian. Strengthening the tax base by encouraging private development and increasing the assessed values of properties within the district. A projected $20M valued physical property being added to the tax roll for the Ada County Assessor (when land values are added to the valuation) for the entire Site Plan. This translates into a substantial increase in property taxes being collected each year. Eliminating of obsolete building types and inadequate public improvements and facilities. All three existing buildings (on this Site Plan) have exhausted their useful life and must be torn down to accommodate this proposed project. This project will also include any requisite improvements to the existing public facilities. Promoting modern integrated development with appropriate setbacks, parking, and pedestrian and vehicle circulation. Our Site Plan provides sufficient parking to accommodate the proposed commercial parking requirements. Covered parking are included in the design plans for residential units. Providing unity and integrity of design in the district. The proposed design is a modern take on a classic brick construction. We will work closely with MDC during final plan creation to ensure unity. Promoting an improved environment for new commercial and residential developments. This project is a standard for all future downtown renewal projects to follow. Our residential concept provides the thought leadership needed to entice future developers. As referenced in the Site Plan, our project includes two buildings: Building A: Overall s.f. 40,832, 4 Floors, Retail/Commercial on the first floor (5,955 s.f.), 31 Residential Units Building B: Overall s.f. 80,155, 4 Floors, Retail/Commercial on the first floor (8,745 s.f.), 72 Residential Units OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 12 Building C (OPTION): Overall s.f. 29,796, 4 Floors, Retail/Commercial on the first & second floors (11,337 s.f.) 16 Residential Units OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 13 Site Plan & Illustrations These have been provided in the sections above. Ingress/Egress for Vehicles and Pedestrians These have been provided in the sections above. There are no material changes in existing ingress/egress for vehicles or pedestrians. OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 14 Financial Analysis Development Cost Summary We have attached (Exhibit A) a complete Financial Pro Forma for this project. The highlights are: 1. Our Team has valued the land at $12/s.f. for the Old City Hall site. This amounts to $565k paid to the City for this property 2. Our Team requests $460k in funding from MDC towards off-site work, utility relocation, clean-up costs and demo associated with the project. We expect the details of this reimbursement would be outlined in the Development Agreement (and would need to be merged with the existing Development Agreement for the Main & Broadway properties) 3. Total Construction Costs are estimated to be $20,032,441 4. Estimating $130,000 in Annual Property Taxes being generated by this project Financing Plan Pacific Companies’s liquidity and net worth are strong and continue their steady growth trend at over $15 million and $75 million, respectively. Our large portfolio and long-standing relationships with numerous lenders attract the most competitive financing terms available. Since 2010, TPC has guaranteed and repaid well in excess of $500 million in debt. TPC uses its own capital to fund the majority of its predevelopment expenses for its affordable housing pipeline. As of this writing, TPC has approximately $14 million of its own capital invested in predevelopment costs for projects that will begin construction over the next 36 months. TPC occasionally uses bank loans or loans from its private investment funds when early site acquisition or high up-front costs make this a preferential option. We expect to finance the project with conventional bank financing and a combination of sponsor and private equity, all of which would be fully committed before the start of construction. TPC has extensive experience with institutional financing that includes conventional loans, tax- exempt bonds, and low-income housing tax credits, and have raised over $200 million in private debt and equity capital since 2008. Due to our long-standing relationships and large portfolio, we attract competitive financing terms from lenders, investors, and a variety of local sources – including both public and private loans and grants. TPC has posted strong net income for many years, of which the income after tax has been reinvested in TPC’s pipeline of projects on an ongoing basis. The company maintains a significant cash position at all times as a hedge against unforeseen challenges. We have made an Enterprise Financial Overview available as Exhibit B to this proposal. Sources and Uses Table See Exhibit A OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 15 Development Timeline This preliminary schedule could be impacted by a number of factors, such as timing of the negotiation period, longer than expected design review period, or the ability to transfer the publicly-owned property. At this early stage, we must stress that this schedule is optimistic and that forces outside the control of the development team often impact the schedules of development projects of this scale. Proposed Development Schedule Action / Event Begin End City selects finalist and negotiation of Development Agreement Aug 2018 Sep 2018 Inspect and complete due diligence investigations of the site Sep 2018 Nov 2018 Receive entitlement approvals and acquire property Nov 2019 Feb 2019 Design documents and development Jan 2019 Mar 2019 Demolition of existing structures Mar 2019 Mar 2019 Prepare construction drawings and obtain building permit approvals Mar 2019 May 2019 Close financing Apr 2019 May 2019 Construction period May 2019 Nov 2020 Initial occupancy and lease-up Nov 2020 Feb 2021 OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 16 Comparable Projects Pacific Companies has produced more than 200 projects consisting of housing, schools, and commercial facilities over its 20 years, and has been recognized several times as a national, “Top 10” developer of affordable housing. Due to our long-standing relationships and large portfolio, we attract competitive financing terms from institutional and private lenders and investors. We maintain a significant cash position at all times as a hedge against unforeseen challenges and redirect most income to our pipeline of projects on an ongoing basis. In addition to bringing a strong resume of development experience, TPC is able to provide the full breadth of development roles in-house: design, development, construction, and ownership/ management. This level of vertical integration gives us the leverage to develop a more cost effective, higher quality, and energy efficient development. Whether our project team is largely comprised of our in-house teams or a variety of partners, our cross-disciplinary skills enhance outcomes. Below are some comparable projects. We are happy to provide additional POC information for these developments based on what aspect of the project MDC would like to inquire about. Project Name/Description Colonial House Oxnard, California Kymberly Horner, Economic Development Director, City of Oxnard (805) 385-7407 | kymberly.horner@oxnard.org Purpose: Mixed Use Residential Units: 44 Commerical Units: 7 commercial condominiums Square Feet: 160,000 (approx) Status: Completed 2014 Colonial House is a mixed-use housing community on N. Oxnard Boulevard (Pacific Coast Highway) near the Oxnard Transit Center. The project includes seven ground floor retail suites and secured podium parking in a California Coastal style. OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 17 Project Name/Description Eagle Urban Renewal District Projects Eagle, Idaho William Vaughan, Zoning Administrator, City of Eagle (208) 938-3854 x207 | wvaughn@cityofeagle.org Purpose: Mixed Use Units: See breakdown below Square Feet: See breakdown below Status: Under construction, much is complete • Eagle Lakes – Under construction o 250 market rate multifamily apartments o 30 single family homes o 40 townhomes o 15,000 sq. ft. retail/commercial o 35,000 sq. ft. office space • East End Riverside – Under construction o 94,000 sq. ft. retail/commercial o 23,000 sq. ft. office space • East End Marketplace – Under construction o 48 affordable senior apartments - Complete o 75,000 sq. ft. retail/commercial OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 18 Pacific Companies Current Projects Property Name City St Units Status Development Cost Shandon Park Apartments Rawlins WY 36 Stabilized $3,996,384 Connemara Laramie WY 48 Stabilized $7,419,936 Creekbridge Court Nampa ID 60 Stabilized $4,495,461 Wentworth Apartments Evanston WY 24 Stabilized $2,997,288 Mountainview Apartments Winnemucca NV 42 Stabilized $3,342,510 Stonecreek Apartments West Wendover NV 42 Stabilized $3,625,258 Meadowbrook Apartments Emmett ID 36 Stabilized $2,804,121 San Joaquin Vista Apartments Firebaugh CA 48 Stabilized $4,490,358 Summer Creek Place Oakley CA 80 Stabilized $10,490,256 Sunrise Vista Apartments Waterford CA 56 Stabilized $6,535,803 Meadow Vista Apartments Red Bluff CA 72 Stabilized $8,442,102 Summercreek Place Eureka CA 40 Stabilized $3,833,207 College Hills Phase I Riverton WY 48 Stabilized $7,419,936 Teton View Village Apartments Victor ID 32 Stabilized $2,828,205 The Courtyards at Ridgecrest Nampa ID 60 Stabilized $5,034,828 The Courtyards at Corvallis Corvallis MT 36 Stabilized $3,131,956 Ashton Place Caldwell ID 48 Stabilized $4,265,623 The Courtyards at Pahrump Pahrump NV 60 Stabilized $6,727,961 Creekside Court Apartments Sheridan WY 51 Stabilized $3,889,856 The Courtyards at Sheridan Sheridan WY 60 Stabilized $5,352,782 Palm Terrace Apartments Pahrump NV 64 Stabilized $4,344,796 The Courtyards at Ridgecrest II Nampa ID 54 Stabilized $4,903,627 Summercreek Village Apartments Ukiah CA 64 Stabilized $9,818,201 The Courtyards at Arcata Arcata CA 64 Stabilized $9,126,088 Snow King Apartments Jackson WY 24 Stabilized $4,218,119 Wind River Apartments Douglas WY 42 Stabilized $4,138,811 Carrington Pointe Apartments Rock Springs WY 60 Stabilized $6,317,003 The Foothills Apartments Meridian ID 54 Stabilized $5,114,141 Meadows Senior Village Fortuna CA 40 Stabilized $4,201,960 OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 19 Property Name City St Units Status Development Cost Park Creek Village Apartments Farmersville CA 48 Stabilized $7,179,081 Park Ridge Apartments Post Falls ID 54 Stabilized $5,197,301 Vista Montana Apartments Las Cruces NM 80 Stabilized $7,598,471 Lakeview Terrace Apartments Clearlake CA 60 Stabilized $9,553,338 College Hills Phase II Riverton WY 32 Stabilized $3,617,515 The Courtyards at Cypress Grove Oakley CA 96 Stabilized $29,596,715 Pinehurst at Flagstaff Flagstaff AZ 84 Stabilized $10,729,317 Aspen Village at Mammoth Creek Mammoth Lakes CA 48 Stabilized $15,071,479 Taylor Park Meadows Taylor AZ 42 Stabilized $5,450,928 Vista Ridge Apartments Red Bluff CA 56 Stabilized $11,108,932 Creekbridge Arboleda King City CA 32 Stabilized $2,800,000 Redwood Village Redway CA 20 Stabilized $4,585,701 Fortuna Family Apartments Fortuna CA 24 Stabilized $6,595,730 Quail Run at River's Edge Elko NV 60 Stabilized $8,352,505 Willow Creek Apartments Willow Creek CA 24 Stabilized $6,471,591 The Courtyards at Arcata II Arcata CA 36 Stabilized $9,705,423 Parkside Court Apartments Woodlake CA 24 Stabilized $5,710,316 The Buttes at Idaho Falls Idaho Falls ID 80 Stabilized $9,806,598 Henness Flats Truckee CA 92 Stabilized $27,631,249 Mammoth Lakes Family Apts II Mammoth Lakes CA 30 Stabilized $10,876,639 Sequoia Village at River's Edge Porterville CA 64 Stabilized $10,383,846 Willow Plaza Apartments Bishop CA 12 Stabilized $4,416,934 Cobre Village Globe AZ 64 Stabilized $9,839,426 Summit Crest Apartments Carson City NV 28 Stabilized $6,267,604 Salado Orchard Apartments Corning CA 48 Stabilized $10,577,301 Chico Courtyards Chico CA 76 Stabilized $18,510,123 Blue Oak Court Apartments Anderson CA 80 Stabilized $16,235,736 Frishman Hollow Apartments Truckee CA 32 Stabilized $14,493,837 Alicante Apartments Huron CA 81 Stabilized $15,773,133 OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 20 Property Name City St Units Status Development Cost Hillview Ridge Apartments Oroville CA 72 Stabilized $18,901,162 Gateway Village Apartments Farmersville CA 48 Stabilized $13,596,682 The Majestic Apartments Hayward CA 81 Stabilized $14,459,798 Southgate Apartments Carson City NV 148 Stabilized $17,497,845 Gateway Village Apartments II Farmersville CA 16 Stabilized $3,751,228 El Centro Senior Villas II El Centro CA 20 Stabilized $4,614,457 Montgomery Crossing Apartments Lemoore CA 57 Stabilized $15,063,079 Bakersfield Family Apartments Bakersfield CA 80 Stabilized $18,291,740 Springhill Gardens Grass Valley CA 121 Stabilized $15,688,704 Village Grove Apartments Farmersville CA 48 Stabilized $4,013,609 Riverbank Family Apartments Riverbank CA 65 Stabilized $18,094,546 Parkside at Sycamore West Sacramento CA 62 Stabilized $23,215,175 Madera Peak Vista Apartments Globe AZ 60 Stabilized $8,963,757 Mahogany Court Apartments Minden NV 21 Stabilized $5,426,540 Valley Gardens Armona CA 20 Stabilized $5,769,276 Euclid Village Apartments Dinuba CA 57 Stabilized $14,849,739 Palomar Court Farmersville CA 40 Stabilized $7,390,100 East Street Senior Apartments Redding CA 21 Stabilized $5,096,472 Paigewood Village Apartments Orland CA 73 Stabilized $19,562,530 Tierra Vista Apartments Hanford CA 49 Stabilized $11,911,438 Tresor Apartments Salinas CA 81 Stabilized $23,856,482 Orchard Village Apartments Winters CA 74 Stabilized $22,614,808 The Groves at Lindsay Lindsay CA 73 Stabilized $12,211,041 Seasons at Anderson Anderson CA 79 Stabilized $14,253,861 Rancho Hermosa Santa Maria CA 47 Stabilized $21,894,338 Pacifica Apartments Watsonville CA 20 Stabilized $6,615,143 Arvin Square Apartments Arvin CA 51 Stabilized $8,446,550 Altaville Apartments Angels Camp CA 50 Stabilized $6,803,035 Olivehurst Apartments Olivehurst CA 51 Stabilized $8,959,320 OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 21 Property Name City St Units Status Development Cost Rodeo Drive Meadows Victorville CA 48 Stabilized $12,305,013 Villa Siena Apartments Porterville CA 70 Stabilized $20,393,403 West Trail Apartments Tulare CA 49 Stabilized $13,771,092 Sycamore Family Apartments Arvin CA 49 Stabilized $13,659,954 Washington Court Apartments Gridley CA 57 Stabilized $13,077,531 Aster Place Apartments Eureka CA 40 Stabilized $9,259,090 Amanda Park Apartments Murrieta CA 397 Stabilized $46,955,515 Bidwell Park Apartments Chico CA 38 Stabilized $7,881,439 Hillview Ridge Apartments II Oroville CA 57 Stabilized $14,582,261 Waterford Gardens Apartments Waterford CA 51 Stabilized $9,564,479 Cinnamon Villas Lemoore CA 80 Stabilized $13,194,351 Avila Avenue Apartments Parlier CA 33 Stabilized $10,316,672 Ridgecrest Senior Apartments Ridgecrest CA 32 Stabilized $7,058,329 Terracina Oaks Apartments Greenfield CA 41 Stabilized $11,494,708 The Crossing at North Loop Antelope CA 112 Stabilized $13,188,567 Dolores Lia Apartments Millbrae CA 27 Stabilized $11,456,981 Arborpoint Apartments Madera CA 65 Stabilized $16,532,083 Woodbridge Apartments Merced CA 75 Stabilized $16,543,390 Riverbank Senior Apartments Riverbank CA 20 Stabilized $6,284,779 Paradise Arms Los Angeles CA 43 Stabilized $12,798,518 Cypress Court Lompoc CA 60 Stabilized $12,893,575 Plumas Family Apartments Yuba City CA 15 Stabilized $3,778,910 Sonoma Gardens Santa Rosa CA 60 Stabilized $12,015,926 Mayfair Court Apartments San Jose CA 93 Stabilized $39,855,003 Colonial House Oxnard CA 44 Stabilized $21,850,852 The Aspens Tulare CA 47 Stabilized $10,838,261 Bella Vista Lakeport CA 48 Stabilized $11,033,555 The Orchards on Newcastle Livingston CA 49 Stabilized $13,350,011 Valley Glen Apartments Dixon CA 59 Stabilized $18,474,103 The Aspens at South Lake South Lake Tahoe CA 48 Stabilized $16,549,568 OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 22 Property Name City St Units Status Development Cost The Grove Apartments Linda CA 49 Stabilized $11,094,173 King's Station Apartments King City CA 57 Stabilized $15,772,653 Williams Senior Apartments Williams CA 48 Stabilized $11,723,080 ILT Charter Student Housing Garland TX 40 Stabilized $7,805,000 Sycamore Family Apartments II Arvin CA 72 Stabilized $18,894,156 Dickinson Meadows Dickinson ND 112 Stabilized $20,679,536 Calden Court Apartments South Gate CA 216 Stabilized $75,101,459 Sun Ray Family Apartments Douglas AZ 57 Stabilized $11,067,215 PATH Villas at Del Rey Los Angeles CA 23 Stabilized $9,401,577 Avery Gardens Apartments Elk Grove CA 64 Stabilized $15,085,115 Icon on Rosecrans Hawthorne CA 127 Stabilized $48,642,276 Third Street Residences San Jose CA 37 Stabilized $13,402,139 Willow Springs Senior Willows CA 49 Stabilized $9,349,700 Harbour View Senior Richmond CA 62 Stabilized $16,920,419 The Village at Henderson Porterville CA 168 Sold $21,492,174 Magnolia Place Senior Apartments Greenfield CA 32 Stabilized $7,142,316 Sanger Crossing Sanger CA 45 Stabilized $9,340,959 6th Street Lofts Long Beach CA 30 Sold $6,569,000 Centennial Place Hanford CA 176 Stabilized $25,805,379 Newcomb Court Porterville CA 80 Stabilized $14,490,083 Avila Avenue Apartments II Parlier CA 24 Stabilized $6,124,043 Carlow Senior Apartments Rexburg ID 48 Stabilized $8,151,502 Parkside Apartments Post Falls ID 24 Stabilized $3,172,816 Casas de Esperanza Douglas AZ 50 Stabilized $8,464,699 Arroyo Del Camino Avenal CA 41 Stabilized $9,638,257 Kristen Court Live Oak CA 56 Stabilized $14,745,504 Terracina Oaks Apartments II Greenfield CA 48 Stabilized $11,699,090 Valle del Sol Coalinga CA 40 Stabilized $7,449,793 Belmont Family Exeter CA 25 Stabilized $6,130,561 Malan Street Brawley CA 41 Stabilized $11,533,855 Riverbank Central Riverbank CA 72 Stabilized $18,471,147 OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 23 Property Name City St Units Status Development Cost Vista Rose Senior Wasilla AK 42 Lease-Up $8,954,307 Alexander Station Gilroy CA 263 Construction $101,215,348 21 & 23 Nevin Richmond CA 289 Construction $66,239,744 Vista de Oro Hollister CA 80 Construction $28,737,000 Cherry Street Lofts Bridgeport CT 157 Construction $54,384,783 Gateway Station Oxnard CA 240 Construction $108,035,825 Kinsale Place Lewiston ID 36 Construction $7,125,847 Harvest Park Gilroy CA 98 Construction $43,783,392 Stoneman Pittsburg CA 230 Construction $98,623,194 Stony Creek II Williams CA 32 Construction $9,826,913 Middleton Place Huntington Park CA 20 Construction $9,348,939 Vista Rose Senior II Wasilla AK 42 Construction $7,621,333 Bow Street Apts I Elk Grove CA 50 Construction $15,575,796 Bow Street Apts II Elk Grove CA 48 Construction $11,551,898 PATH Eucalyptus Villas Inglewood CA 40 Construction $15,465,786 Healdsburg Glen Healdsburg CA 20 Construction $10,479,697 Brunswick Street Daly City CA 206 Construction $92,082,952 New Path Community Housing Boise ID 41 Construction $7,533,047 Cottonwood Meadows Eagle ID 48 Construction $9,305,277 Prelude at Paramount Meridian ID 272 Construction $43,387,000 Bella Terra Anchorage AK 32 Construction $5,500,000 Eagle Lakes Eagle ID 250 Construction $46,472,000 Napa Courtyards Napa CA 20 InDev $8,176,685 Adare Manor Boise ID 134 InDev $27,229,431 Las Brisas Caldwell ID 48 InDev $9,591,681 Kenolio Apartments Maui HI 186 InDev $85,449,680 Martin Street Lakeport CA 24 InDev $8,691,458 First Point I Santa Ana CA 346 InDev $153,172,622 First Point II Santa Ana CA 206 InDev $98,236,515 Villa Court Santa Ana CA 418 InDev $147,594,669 International Station Oakland CA 324 InDev $113,179,623 OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 24 Property Name City St Units Status Development Cost Parkside at Vast Oak Rohnert Park CA 218 InDev $81,955,117 Garden Brook Senior Village Garden Grove CA 400 InDev $140,128,598 Village at Burlingame Burlingame CA 132 InDev $84,361,190 Malan Street II Brawley CA 40 InDev $14,400,000 Magnolia Senior Apartments II Greenfield CA 32 InDev $8,300,000 Cinnamon Villas II Lemoore CA 28 InDev $5,700,000 Vine Creek Temecula CA 60 InDev $19,425,847 Parkway Apartments Folsom CA 72 InDev $20,000,000 Kristen Court II Live Oak CA 24 InDev $7,431,484 Arroyo Del Camino II Avenal CA 36 InDev $8,973,423 Bella Vista Phase I Anchorage AK 104 InDev $19,743,094 SUBTOTAL 13,945 $3,608,564,591 OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 25 The Team The key leadership for this project is as follows: Joshua Evarts Managing Member, Novembrewhisky Properties, LLC Responsible for architectural design inputs to maintain historic elements for this project. Responsible for all related commercial leases and recruiting strategic business into our City Core. Caleb Roope President and Chief Executive Officer, The Pacific Companies Mr. Roope leads both the development and construction divisions of TPC. He will provide financial analysis, represent TPC throughout design and construction, and oversee project execution. Melinda Rex Chief Operating Officer, The Pacific Companies Ms. Rex will be responsible for sourcing and closing all debt and equity financing for both the housing and commercial components. Chris Grant Project Manager, The Pacific Companies Mr. Grant will manage and coordinate the entitlement, building permit, and construction phases of the project. He will be the central point of coordination across city requirements, programmatic needs, and the construction team. OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 26 Exhibit A - Financial Pro Forma 208.461.3267 fax calebr@tpchousing.com The Pacific Companies 430 East State Street, Suite 100 Eagle, ID 83616 208.461.0022 x 3015 Caleb Roope Idaho & Main Mixed Use A 103-Unit Housing Development with Retail / Office Meridian, ID Financial Pro Forma Rev. 7/19/18 Prepared By: Rev. 7/19/18 DEVELOPMENT BUDGET Idaho & Main Mixed Use Meridian, ID Project Cost Per Cost Per Depreciable Costs Unit Res. Sq. Ft. Basis Total Land Costs 565,000$ 5,485$ 4.67$ XXXXXXXXXX Total Acquisition Costs -$ -$ - $ -$ New Construction and/or Rehabilitation Off-Site Work / Utility Relocation 310,000$ 3,010$ 2.56$ 310,000$ Demolition Cost 150,000$ 1,456$ 1.24$ -$ On Site Work 1,030,000$ 10,000$ 8.51$ 1,030,000$ Structures 11,968,700$ 116,201$ 98.93$ 11,968,700$ General Requirements 403,761$ 3,920$ 3.34$ 403,761$ Contractor Overhead 269,174$ 2,613$ 2.22$ 269,174$ Contractor Profit 672,935$ 6,533$ 5.56$ 672,935$ Construction Contingency 900,000$ 8,738$ 7.44$ 900,000$ Total Construction Costs 15,704,570$ 152,472$ 129.80$ 15,554,570$ Financing Costs Lender Loan Interest 500,000$ 4,854$ 4.13$ 500,000$ Lender Loan Fee 87,000$ 845$ 0.72$ 87,000$ Lender Costs (Legal, Etc.)80,000$ 777$ 0.66$ 80,000$ FHA MIP -$ -$ - $ -$ FHA Application & Inspection Fee -$ -$ - $ -$ MAP Lender Financing Fee -$ -$ - $ XXXXXXXXXX Tax Credit Fees -$ -$ - $ XXXXXXXXXX Bond Counsel -$ -$ - $ XXXXXXXXXX Other Financing Costs -$ -$ - $ XXXXXXXXXX Total Financing Costs 667,000$ 6,476$ 5.51$ 667,000$ Soft Costs Architectural 300,000$ 2,913$ 2.48$ 300,000$ Engineering/Surveying/Environmental 120,000$ 1,165$ 0.99$ 120,000$ Taxes During Construction 80,000$ 777$ 0.66$ 80,000$ Insurance (Builder's Risk, GL)235,600$ 2,287$ 1.95$ 235,600$ Title & Recording 50,000$ 485$ 0.41$ 50,000$ Borrower Attorney 50,000$ 485$ 0.41$ 50,000$ Appraisal 10,000$ 97$ 0.08$ 10,000$ Local Tap, Building Permit, & Impact Fees 1,087,000$ 10,553$ 8.98$ 1,087,000$ Marketing 100,000$ 971$ 0.83$ XXXXXXXXXX Relocation Costs -$ -$ - $ XXXXXXXXXX Furnishings 40,000$ 388$ 0.33$ 40,000$ Accounting 10,000$ 97$ 0.08$ 10,000$ Market Study 10,000$ 97$ 0.08$ 10,000$ Soft Cost Contingency 50,000$ 485$ 0.41$ 50,000$ Developer Fee 365,000$ 3,544$ 3.02$ 365,000$ Consultant Fee -$ -$ - $ -$ Total Soft Costs 2,507,600$ 24,346$ 20.73$ 2,407,600$ Reserves Lease-Up Interest 250,000$ 2,427$ 2.07$ XXXXXXXXXX Operating Deficit Reserve (3 Months)338,271$ 3,284$ 2.80$ XXXXXXXXXX Total Reserve Costs 588,271$ 5,711$ 4.86$ XXXXXXXXXX Totals 20,032,441$ 194,490$ 165.58$ 18,629,170$ Rev. 7/19/18 Sponsor Equity 7,482,441$ Sponsor Equity 7,482,441$ MDC Contribution 460,000$ Construction to Permanent Loan 11,600,000$ NOI During Stabilization 490,000$ MDC Contribution 460,000$ Other -$ NOI During Stabilization 490,000$ Other -$ Other -$ Other -$ Other -$ Deferred Costs -$ Other -$ Deferred Contractor Profit -$ Other -$ Deferred Developer Fee -$ Other -$ Construction Loan 11,600,000$ Other -$ Total Sources of Funds 20,032,441$ Total Sources of Funds 20,032,441$ Total Land Costs 565,000$ Total Land Costs 565,000$ Total Acquisition Costs -$ Total Acquisition Costs -$ New Construction and/or Rehabilitation 14,804,570$ New Construction and/or Rehabilitation 14,804,570$ Construction Contingency 900,000$ Construction Contingency 900,000$ Financing Costs 667,000$ Financing Costs 667,000$ Architecture & Engineering 420,000$ Architecture & Engineering 420,000$ Other Soft Costs 1,672,600$ Other Soft Costs 1,672,600$ Developer Fees 365,000$ Developer Fees 365,000$ Soft Cost Contingency 50,000$ Soft Cost Contingency 50,000$ Reserves 588,271$ Reserves 588,271$ Total Uses of Funds 20,032,441$ Total Uses of Funds 20,032,441$ Uses of Funds Uses of Funds SOURCES & USES Idaho & Main Mixed Use Meridian, ID CONSTRUCTION PHASE PERMANENT PHASE Sources of FundsSources of Funds OPERATING & LOAN DETAILS Project: Idaho & Main Mixed Use Location: Meridian, ID Rev. 7/19/18 AMI Number Avg. Unit Gross Utility Net Monthly Annual Type Rent Level of Units Sq. Ft. Rent Allowance Rent Totals Totals 1BR/1BA 0% 0 0000 0 0 1BR/1BA 0% 0 0000 0 0 1BR/1BA 0% 0 0000 0 0 1BR/1BA Market 48 700 990 0 990 47,520 570,240 2BR/1BA 0%0 0000 0 0 2BR/1BA 0%0 0000 0 0 2BR/1BA 0%0 0000 0 0 2BR/1BA Market 54 900 1,160 0 1,160 62,640 751,680 3BR/2BA 0%0 0000 0 0 3BR/2BA 0%0 0000 0 0 3BR/2BA 0%0 0000 0 0 3BR/2BA Market 0 0000 0 0 4BR/2BA 0%0 0000 0 0 4BR/2BA 0%0 0000 0 0 4BR/2BA 0%0 0000 0 0 4BR/2BA Market 0 0000 0 0 2BR/1BA Manager's 10 0 0 00 0 Total Units & Sq. Ft.103 82,200 % of Sq. Ft. % of Units 110,160$ 1,321,920$ Common Area / Retail / Office 38,787 Affordable Affordable Total Project Sq. Ft.120,987 0.00% 0.97% Total Annual Rental Income 1,321,920$ Operating Deficit Guarantee 10% of Perm.1,160,000$ Other Income Year 1 Op. Exp.540,750$ Laundry, Tenant Charges, Etc. / Unit / Year 300$ 30,900$ Guarantee 1,160,000$ Retail / Office Space NNN In come (15,700 sf x $18) 282,600$ Total Annual Other Income 313,500$ Replacement Reserves Total Annual Potential Gross Income 1,635,420$ Standard/Unit 250$ Vacany & Collection Loss 7%(114,479)$ Other Min/Unit 500$ Reserve / Unit 250$ Annual Effective Gross Income 1,520,941$ Project Unit Mix Unit Type Number % of Total 1 Bdrm./1 Bath. 48 46.60% 2 Bdrm./1 Bath. 55 53.40% 3 Bdrm./2 Bath. 0 0.00% 4 Bdrm./2 Bath. 0 0.00% Totals 103 100.00% OPERATING & LOAN DETAILS (continued) ANNUAL EXPENSES % of Annual % of Total EGI Operating Exp. Per Unit Total Real Estate Taxes & Special Assessments 8.56% 24.08% 1,264.00$ 130,200$ Other Taxes 0.11% 0.30% 16.00$ 1,600$ Insurance 1.35% 3.81% 200.00$ 20,600$ Licenses 0.02% 0.06% 3.00$ 350$ Fuel & Gas 0.09%0.25%13.00$ 1,300$ Electricity 1.42%4.00%210.00$ 21,600$ Water & Sewer 3.56%10.00%525.00$ 54,100$ Trash Removal 1.60%4.50%236.00$ 24,300$ Pest Control 0.10% 0.28% 15.00$ 1,500$ Building & Maintenance Repairs 2.85%8.00%420.00$ 43,300$ Building & Maintenance Supplies 1.42%4.00%210.00$ 21,600$ Supportive Services 0.00% 0.00% -$ -$ Annual Issuer & Trustee Fees 0.00% 0.00% -$ -$ Gardening & Landscaping 1.78%5.00%263.00$ 27,100$ Management Fee 4.00%8.93% 469.00$ 48,300$ On-Site Manager(s) 3.25% 9.14% 480.00$ 49,440$ Other Payroll 1.42%4.00%210.00$ 21,600$ Manager's Unit Expense 0.00% 0.00% -$ -$ Cleaning Supplies 0.36%1.00%53.00$ 5,500$ Benefits 0.13% 0.37% 19.00$ 2,000$ Payroll Taxes & Work Comp 1.07% 3.01% 158.00$ 16,300$ Advertising 0.36%1.00%53.00$ 5,500$ Telephone 0.10% 0.28% 15.00$ 1,500$ Legal & Accounting 0.39% 1.11% 58.00$ 6,000$ Operating Reserves 0.00% 0.00% -$ -$ Office Supplies & Expense 0.10% 0.28% 15.00$ 1,500$ Miscellaneous Administrative 0.64% 1.84% 95.00$ 9,810$ Replacement Reserves 1.69% 4.76% 250.00$ 25,750$ Annual Expenses - Per Unit & Total 5,250$ 540,750$ Annual Net Operating Income - Per Unit & Total 9,516$ 980,191$ PERMANENT FIRST MORTGAGE ANALYSIS LTV Restricted Loan Amounts DSC Ratio Restricted Loan Amounts Cap Rate 5.500% 6.000% 6.500%** **Fixed Loan Loan-To-Value Restriction 80% 80% 80%** **Amount Debt Service Coverage 0.98 1.07 1.16 1.25 1.20 1.21 Loan Amount 14,257,324$ 13,069,213$ 12,063,889$ 11,197,585$ 11,664,151$ 11,600,000$ Constant ** ** **0.070029 0.070029 0.070029 Interest Rate 5.750%5.750% 5.750% 5.750% 5.750% 5.750% Amortization Period in Years 30 30 30 30 30 30 Annual Debt Service 998,422$ 915,221$ 844,819$ 784,153$ 816,826$ 812,333$ Annual Cash Flow (18,231)$ 64,970$ 135,372$ 196,038$ 163,365$ 167,858$ Loan Selection x Idaho & Main Mixed Use Meridian, ID Rev. 7/19/18 Multi-Year Stabilized Operating Pro-Forma Net Rent / No. of Annual Year Year Year Year Year RENTAL INCOME % AMI Unit - Year 1 Units Increase 123 4 5 1BR/1BA 0%0 0 2.5%- - - - - 1BR/1BA 0%0 0 2.5%- - - - - 1BR/1BA 0%0 0 2.5%- - - - - 1BR/1BA Market 990 48 2.5% 570,240 584,496 599,108 614,086 629,438 2BR/1BA 0%0 0 2.5%- - - - - 2BR/1BA 0%0 0 2.5%- - - - - 2BR/1BA 0%0 0 2.5%- - - - - 2BR/1BA Market 1,160 54 2.5% 751,680 770,472 789,734 809,477 829,714 3BR/2BA 0%0 0 2.5%- - - - - 3BR/2BA 0%0 0 2.5%- - - - - 3BR/2BA 0%0 0 2.5%- - - - - 3BR/2BA Market 0 0 2.5%- - - - - 4BR/2BA 0%0 0 2.5%- - - - - 4BR/2BA 0%0 0 2.5%- - - - - 4BR/2BA 0%0 0 2.5%- - - - - 4BR/2BA Market 0 0 2.5%- - - - - 2BR/1BA Manager's 0 1 2.5%- - - - - TOTAL RENTAL INCOME 103 1,321,920 1,354,968 1,388,842 1,423,563 1,459,152 OTHER INCOME Units Incr./Yr. Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Laundry, Tenant Charges, Etc. / Unit / Year 103 2.5%30,900 31,673 32,464 33,276 34,108 Retail / Office Space NNN Income (15,700 sf x $18)103 2.5% 282,600 289,665 296,907 304,329 311,938 TOTAL OTHER INCOME 313,500 321,338 329,371 337,605 346,045 TOTAL INCOME 1,635,420 1,676,306 1,718,213 1,761,168 1,805,198 Less Vacancy Allowance 7% (114,479) (117,341) (120,275) (123,282) (126,364) GROSS INCOME 1,520,941 1,558,965 1,597,938 1,637,886 1,678,834 OPERATING EXPENSES Per Unit - Yr. 1 %EGI Incr./Yr. Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Real Estate Taxes & Special Assessments 1,264$ 8.6%2.0%130,200 132,804 135,460 138,169 140,933 Other Taxes 16$ 0.1%3.5%1,600 1,656 1,714 1,774 1,836 Insurance 200$ 1.4% 3.5% 20,600 21,321 22,067 22,840 23,639 Licenses 3$ 0.0% 3.5%350 362 375 388 402 Fuel & Gas 13$ 0.1% 3.5% 1,300 1,346 1,393 1,441 1,492 Electricity 210$ 1.4% 3.5% 21,600 22,356 23,138 23,948 24,786 Water & Sewer 525$ 3.6% 3.5% 54,100 55,994 57,953 59,982 62,081 Trash Removal 236$ 1.6% 3.5% 24,300 25,151 26,031 26,942 27,885 Pest Control 15$ 0.1% 3.5% 1,500 1,553 1,607 1,663 1,721 Building & Maintenance Repairs 420$ 2.8% 3.5% 43,300 44,816 46,384 48,007 49,688 Building & Maintenance Supplies 210$ 1.4% 3.5% 21,600 22,356 23,138 23,948 24,786 Supportive Services -$ 0.0% 3.5%- - - - - Annual Issuer & Trustee Fees -$ 0.0% 3.5%- - - - - Gardening & Landscaping 263$ 1.8% 3.5% 27,100 28,049 29,030 30,046 31,098 Management Fee 469$ 3.2% 3.5% 48,300 49,991 51,740 53,551 55,425 On-Site Manager(s)480$ 3.3% 3.5% 49,440 51,170 52,961 54,815 56,734 Other Payroll 210$ 1.4% 3.5% 21,600 22,356 23,138 23,948 24,786 Manager's Unit Expense -$ 0.0% 3.5%- - - - - Cleaning Supplies 53$ 0.4% 3.5% 5,500 5,693 5,892 6,098 6,311 Benefits 19$ 0.1% 3.5% 2,000 2,070 2,142 2,217 2,295 Payroll Taxes & Work Comp 158$ 1.1% 3.5% 16,300 16,871 17,461 18,072 18,705 Advertising 53$ 0.4% 3.5% 5,500 5,693 5,892 6,098 6,311 Telephone 15$ 0.1% 3.5% 1,500 1,553 1,607 1,663 1,721 Legal & Accounting 58$ 0.4% 3.5% 6,000 6,210 6,427 6,652 6,885 Office Supplies & Expense 15$ 0.1% 3.5% 1,500 1,553 1,607 1,663 1,721 Miscellaneous Administrative 95$ 0.6% 3.5% 9,810 10,153 10,509 10,877 11,257 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 5,000$ 515,000 531,072 547,667 564,804 582,500 Replacement Reserves 250$ 0.0%25,750 25,750 25,750 25,750 25,750 Operating Reserves -$ 0.0%- - - - - TOTAL EXPENSES & RESERVES 5,250$ 540,750 556,822 573,417 590,554 608,250 CASH FLOW AVAILABLE FOR DEBT SERVICE 980,191 1,002,143 1,024,521 1,047,333 1,070,584 DEBT SERVICE & OTHER DISTRIBUTIONS Loan Amount Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Construction to Permanent Loan Hard 11,600,000$ 812,333 812,333 812,333 812,333 812,333 Other Soft -$ - - - - - Other Soft -$ - - - - - Other Soft -$ - - - - - Other Soft -$ - - - - - Other Soft -$ - - - - - Other Soft -$ - - - - - Other Soft -$ - - - - - ANNUAL NET CASH FLOW 167,858 189,809 212,187 234,999 258,251 Debt Service Coverage Ratio on Hard Debt 1.21 1.23 1.26 1.29 1.32 Idaho & Main Mixed Use Meridian, ID Multi-Year Stabilized Operating Pro-Forma Net Rent / No. of Annual RENTAL INCOME % AMI Unit - Year 1 Units Increase 1BR/1BA 0%0 0 2.5% 1BR/1BA 0%0 0 2.5% 1BR/1BA 0%0 0 2.5% 1BR/1BA Market 990 48 2.5% 2BR/1BA 0%0 0 2.5% 2BR/1BA 0%0 0 2.5% 2BR/1BA 0%0 0 2.5% 2BR/1BA Market 1,160 54 2.5% 3BR/2BA 0%0 0 2.5% 3BR/2BA 0%0 0 2.5% 3BR/2BA 0%0 0 2.5% 3BR/2BA Market 0 0 2.5% 4BR/2BA 0%0 0 2.5% 4BR/2BA 0%0 0 2.5% 4BR/2BA 0%0 0 2.5% 4BR/2BA Market 0 0 2.5% 2BR/1BA Manager's 0 1 2.5% TOTAL RENTAL INCOME 103 OTHER INCOME Units Incr./Yr. Laundry, Tenant Charges, Etc. / Unit / Year 103 2.5% Retail / Office Space NNN Income (15,700 sf x $18)103 2.5% TOTAL OTHER INCOME TOTAL INCOME Less Vacancy Allowance 7% GROSS INCOME OPERATING EXPENSES Per Unit - Yr. 1 %EGI Incr./Yr. Real Estate Taxes & Special Assessments 1,264$ 8.6%2.0% Other Taxes 16$ 0.1%3.5% Insurance 200$ 1.4% 3.5% Licenses 3$ 0.0% 3.5% Fuel & Gas 13$ 0.1% 3.5% Electricity 210$ 1.4% 3.5% Water & Sewer 525$ 3.6% 3.5% Trash Removal 236$ 1.6% 3.5% Pest Control 15$ 0.1% 3.5% Building & Maintenance Repairs 420$ 2.8% 3.5% Building & Maintenance Supplies 210$ 1.4% 3.5% Supportive Services -$ 0.0% 3.5% Annual Issuer & Trustee Fees -$ 0.0% 3.5% Gardening & Landscaping 263$ 1.8% 3.5% Management Fee 469$ 3.2% 3.5% On-Site Manager(s)480$ 3.3% 3.5% Other Payroll 210$ 1.4% 3.5% Manager's Unit Expense -$ 0.0% 3.5% Cleaning Supplies 53$ 0.4% 3.5% Benefits 19$ 0.1% 3.5% Payroll Taxes & Work Comp 158$ 1.1% 3.5% Advertising 53$ 0.4% 3.5% Telephone 15$ 0.1% 3.5% Legal & Accounting 58$ 0.4% 3.5% Office Supplies & Expense 15$ 0.1% 3.5% Miscellaneous Administrative 95$ 0.6% 3.5% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 5,000$ Replacement Reserves 250$ 0.0% Operating Reserves -$ 0.0% TOTAL EXPENSES & RESERVES 5,250$ CASH FLOW AVAILABLE FOR DEBT SERVICE DEBT SERVICE & OTHER DISTRIBUTIONS Loan Amount Construction to Permanent Loan Hard 11,600,000$ Other Soft -$ Other Soft -$ Other Soft -$ Other Soft -$ Other Soft -$ Other Soft -$ Other Soft -$ ANNUAL NET CASH FLOW Debt Service Coverage Ratio on Hard Debt Year Year Year Year Year 6789 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 645,174 661,304 677,836 694,782 712,152 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 850,457 871,718 893,511 915,849 938,745 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,495,631 1,533,022 1,571,347 1,610,631 1,650,897 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 Year-10 34,961 35,835 36,730 37,649 38,590 319,736 327,729 335,923 344,321 352,929 354,696 363,564 372,653 381,969 391,519 1,850,328 1,896,586 1,944,000 1,992,600 2,042,415 (129,523) (132,761) (136,080) (139,482) (142,969) 1,720,805 1,763,825 1,807,920 1,853,118 1,899,446 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 Year-10 143,751 146,626 149,559 152,550 155,601 1,900 1,967 2,036 2,107 2,181 24,466 25,323 26,209 27,126 28,076 416 430 445 461 477 1,544 1,598 1,654 1,712 1,772 25,654 26,552 27,481 28,443 29,439 64,254 66,503 68,830 71,239 73,733 28,861 29,871 30,916 31,998 33,118 1,782 1,844 1,908 1,975 2,044 51,427 53,227 55,090 57,018 59,013 25,654 26,552 27,481 28,443 29,439 - - - - - - - - - - 32,186 33,313 34,479 35,686 36,935 57,365 59,373 61,451 63,602 65,828 58,719 60,774 62,901 65,103 67,382 25,654 26,552 27,481 28,443 29,439 - - - - - 6,532 6,761 6,998 7,242 7,496 2,375 2,459 2,545 2,634 2,726 19,359 20,037 20,738 21,464 22,215 6,532 6,761 6,998 7,242 7,496 1,782 1,844 1,908 1,975 2,044 7,126 7,376 7,634 7,901 8,177 1,782 1,844 1,908 1,975 2,044 11,651 12,059 12,481 12,918 13,370 600,773 619,644 639,132 659,258 680,044 25,750 25,750 25,750 25,750 25,750 - - - - - 626,523 645,394 664,882 685,008 705,794 1,094,282 1,118,431 1,143,039 1,168,110 1,193,653 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 Year-10 812,333 812,333 812,333 812,333 812,333 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 281,948 306,098 330,705 355,777 381,319 1.35 1.38 1.41 1.44 1.47 Idaho & Main Mixed Use Meridian, ID Multi-Year Stabilized Operating Pro-Forma Net Rent / No. of Annual RENTAL INCOME % AMI Unit - Year 1 Units Increase 1BR/1BA 0%0 0 2.5% 1BR/1BA 0%0 0 2.5% 1BR/1BA 0%0 0 2.5% 1BR/1BA Market 990 48 2.5% 2BR/1BA 0%0 0 2.5% 2BR/1BA 0%0 0 2.5% 2BR/1BA 0%0 0 2.5% 2BR/1BA Market 1,160 54 2.5% 3BR/2BA 0%0 0 2.5% 3BR/2BA 0%0 0 2.5% 3BR/2BA 0%0 0 2.5% 3BR/2BA Market 0 0 2.5% 4BR/2BA 0%0 0 2.5% 4BR/2BA 0%0 0 2.5% 4BR/2BA 0%0 0 2.5% 4BR/2BA Market 0 0 2.5% 2BR/1BA Manager's 0 1 2.5% TOTAL RENTAL INCOME 103 OTHER INCOME Units Incr./Yr. Laundry, Tenant Charges, Etc. / Unit / Year 103 2.5% Retail / Office Space NNN Income (15,700 sf x $18)103 2.5% TOTAL OTHER INCOME TOTAL INCOME Less Vacancy Allowance 7% GROSS INCOME OPERATING EXPENSES Per Unit - Yr. 1 %EGI Incr./Yr. Real Estate Taxes & Special Assessments 1,264$ 8.6%2.0% Other Taxes 16$ 0.1%3.5% Insurance 200$ 1.4% 3.5% Licenses 3$ 0.0% 3.5% Fuel & Gas 13$ 0.1% 3.5% Electricity 210$ 1.4% 3.5% Water & Sewer 525$ 3.6% 3.5% Trash Removal 236$ 1.6% 3.5% Pest Control 15$ 0.1% 3.5% Building & Maintenance Repairs 420$ 2.8% 3.5% Building & Maintenance Supplies 210$ 1.4% 3.5% Supportive Services -$ 0.0% 3.5% Annual Issuer & Trustee Fees -$ 0.0% 3.5% Gardening & Landscaping 263$ 1.8% 3.5% Management Fee 469$ 3.2% 3.5% On-Site Manager(s)480$ 3.3% 3.5% Other Payroll 210$ 1.4% 3.5% Manager's Unit Expense -$ 0.0% 3.5% Cleaning Supplies 53$ 0.4% 3.5% Benefits 19$ 0.1% 3.5% Payroll Taxes & Work Comp 158$ 1.1% 3.5% Advertising 53$ 0.4% 3.5% Telephone 15$ 0.1% 3.5% Legal & Accounting 58$ 0.4% 3.5% Office Supplies & Expense 15$ 0.1% 3.5% Miscellaneous Administrative 95$ 0.6% 3.5% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 5,000$ Replacement Reserves 250$ 0.0% Operating Reserves -$ 0.0% TOTAL EXPENSES & RESERVES 5,250$ CASH FLOW AVAILABLE FOR DEBT SERVICE DEBT SERVICE & OTHER DISTRIBUTIONS Loan Amount Construction to Permanent Loan Hard 11,600,000$ Other Soft -$ Other Soft -$ Other Soft -$ Other Soft -$ Other Soft -$ Other Soft -$ Other Soft -$ ANNUAL NET CASH FLOW Debt Service Coverage Ratio on Hard Debt Year Year Year Year Year 11 12 13 14 15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 729,955 748,204 766,909 786,082 805,734 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 962,214 986,269 1,010,926 1,036,199 1,062,104 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,692,169 1,734,474 1,777,835 1,822,281 1,867,838 Year-11 Year-12 Year-13 Year-14 Year-15 39,555 40,543 41,557 42,596 43,661 361,752 370,796 380,066 389,567 399,306 401,307 411,339 421,623 432,163 442,967 2,093,476 2,145,813 2,199,458 2,254,445 2,310,806 (146,543) (150,207) (153,962) (157,811) (161,756) 1,946,933 1,995,606 2,045,496 2,096,634 2,149,050 Year-11 Year-12 Year-13 Year-14 Year-15 158,713 161,887 165,125 168,428 171,796 2,257 2,336 2,418 2,502 2,590 29,058 30,075 31,128 32,217 33,345 494 511 529 547 567 1,834 1,898 1,964 2,033 2,104 30,469 31,535 32,639 33,781 34,964 76,313 78,984 81,749 84,610 87,571 34,278 35,477 36,719 38,004 39,334 2,116 2,190 2,267 2,346 2,428 61,079 63,217 65,429 67,719 70,089 30,469 31,535 32,639 33,781 34,964 - - - - - - - - - - 38,227 39,565 40,950 42,383 43,867 68,132 70,517 72,985 75,539 78,183 69,740 72,181 74,707 77,322 80,028 30,469 31,535 32,639 33,781 34,964 - - - - - 7,758 8,030 8,311 8,602 8,903 2,821 2,920 3,022 3,128 3,237 22,993 23,798 24,630 25,492 26,385 7,758 8,030 8,311 8,602 8,903 2,116 2,190 2,267 2,346 2,428 8,464 8,760 9,066 9,384 9,712 2,116 2,190 2,267 2,346 2,428 13,838 14,322 14,824 15,342 15,879 701,511 723,684 746,584 770,238 794,670 25,750 25,750 25,750 25,750 25,750 - - - - - 727,261 749,434 772,334 795,988 820,420 1,219,671 1,246,172 1,273,162 1,300,646 1,328,630 Year-11 Year-12 Year-13 Year-14 Year-15 812,333 812,333 812,333 812,333 812,333 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 407,338 433,839 460,828 488,312 516,296 1.50 1.53 1.57 1.60 1.64 OLD CITY HALL RFP RESPONSE – 7/25/2018 27 Exhibit B - Enterprise Financial Overview Enterprise Financial Overview Message from the CEO With the completion of eight new multifamily housing developments in 2016, TPC’s total assets grew to over $1.39 billion. The company’s portfolio performed very well with overall occupancy of 97% and debt service coverage of 1.40. Year -end portfolio leverage was 60%, which is low in comparison to our peers. As a continued hedge against unforeseen challenges, we again reported unrestricted liquidity in excess of $10 million and more than $50 million in property -level cash and reserves. In 2016, TPC posted strong net income of $18.6 million due in large part to the benefits of vertical integration. This diversity of revenues provides a broad and stable base for our enterprise as a whole. We very much look forward to launching our 2017 projects which include fourteen affordable housing communities, one public school campus, and two market -rate multifamily developments, largely concentrated in California. Caleb Roope President and CEO Creating healthy environments to live and learn since 1998 Consolidated Statement of Financial Position 2016 2015 ASSETS Cash 16,374,659$ 12,975,484$ Cash - Project Level 12,193,234 12,378,191 Short Term Investments 12,790,420 9,623,541 Receivables/Other 6,251,962 6,469,006 Construction Contracts Receivable 5,168,186 8,693,578 Costs & Profits in Excess of Billings 38,643 17,147 Development in Progress 13,757,175 13,060,078 Investments - Fixed Income 8,037,880 7,985,304 Reserves 37,947,920 33,716,220 Fixed Assets 1,272,954,941 1,200,839,875 Other Long Term Assets 4,299,757 14,317,568 TOTAL ASSETS 1,389,814,777$ 1,320,075,992$ LIABILITIES Total Short Term Liabilities 10,510,392$ 9,443,079$ GP Advances/GC Contracts Payable 74,649,807 67,657,129 Accrued Partnership Fees 2,840,234 3,230,494 Financing Liabilities 715,482,917 684,735,272 Other Long Term Liabilities 7,318,806 18,007,314 TOTAL LIABILITIES 810,802,156$ 783,073,288$ EQUITY TPC Controlling Interest 149,684,386$ 138,306,569$ Non-Controlling Interest 429,328,235 398,696,135 TOTAL EQUITY 579,012,621$ 537,002,704$ TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 1,389,814,777$ 1,320,075,992$ Caleb Roope President / CEO 208-908-4865 calebr@tpchousing.com Mindy Rex COO 208-577-2195 mindyr@tpchousing.com Additional information is available upon request from the contacts below. 430 E. State Street, Ste. 100 | Eagle, ID 83616 www.tpchousing.com Consolidated Income Statement 2016 2015 REVENUES Construction Income 90,940,481$ 86,282,420$ Development Income 5,927,777 7,583,867 Asset Portfolio Income 67,486,895 59,999,719 Architecture Income 911,646 798,618 Project Refunds 549,783 333,667 Interest Income 276,172 50,954 Net Portfolio Insurance Program Income (402,049) (37,717) Miscellaneous Income 5,656,896 2,719,221 TOTAL REVENUES 171,347,601$ 157,730,749$ COSTS OF GOODS SOLD Direct & Indirect Construction Expenses 85,208,898$ 81,528,524$ TOTAL COSTS OF GOODS SOLD 85,208,898$ 81,528,524$ GROSS PROFIT 86,138,703$ 76,202,225$ OPERATING EXPENSES Asset Portfolio Operating Expenses 42,563,439$ 35,497,798$ Salaries & Wages 2,190,955 1,860,194 Office Expenses 995,119 1,233,140 Professional Fees 946,153 979,435 Expensed Project Development Costs 453,824 120,526 Other Operating Expenses 338,780 370,571 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 47,488,270$ 40,061,664$ NON OPERATING EXPENSES Financing Costs 18,041,822$ 19,556,685$ Partnership Fees 2,043,728 1,724,863 Other Non Operating Expenses (13,357) 73,329 TOTAL NON OPERATING EXPENSES 20,072,193$ 21,354,877$ NET INCOME*18,578,240$ 14,785,684$ *(Before Depreciation/Amortization) 0 " z < 0 "w , z A Conceptual Design for a Meridian Mixed-Use I "===IDtj�9 B Overall Area: 80,155 s.f # Floors: 4 Office/ Retail: 9,745 s.f. I 20 Stalls I E IDAHO AVE . -----� □ �-----------P L ___ 7 ,------------, ,-------_j I '----' '----' --� I I 84 New Stalls I : I I I ------------1 -------------'--------------� (E) First Interstate Bank ''i/ .. ;:/ ---- E. BROADWAY AVE Downtown Development 13 December 2017 \\ :1,1 --�I □ I I I I I I I I -�: I 7 Covered Parking -1:::::-_ I I I I I (E) Heritage Building -�P'�---Cc�=:����;--- 1 21 New Stalls I A Overall Area: 40,832 s.f # Floors: 4 Retail/ Restaurant: 5,955 s.f. o-aN'� .�--�rij .,----- �-J ---· � SITE PLAN -OPTION 1 . ;�, ,: 7 ti □]"\\�'i\ �----------------------------------------------------------------i11 \�,.� @ ©I �I /] 1.J I 1@ ·�@ �1,,) (E) First Interstate Bank ----- _ _J:'.".:'.�·--·- Res. Floors: 2, 3 & 4 B 1 Bedroom: 42 2 Bedroom: 30 @ Covered Parking © ' I \'�'.:c� (E) Heritage Building -----11�� ---· A Res. Floors: 2,3 & 4 1 Bedroom: 13 2 Bedroom: 18 z < , z � UPPER FLOORS-OPTION 1 . ;�, ,: LINDGREN:LABRIE A R C H TECTURE COMPANIES OPTION 1 MAIN & BROADWAY COMPANIES A Conceptual Design for a Meridian Mixed-Use Downtown Development 13 December 2017 OPTION 2 LINDGREN:LABRIE ARCHITECTURE To: Joint Meridian City Council and Meridian Development Corporation (Joint Body) From: Old City Hall RFP Review Committee Date: August 17th, 2018 Re: RFP Recommendation The Old City Hall RFP Review Committee was formed with the purpose of reviewing the received proposals, evaluating the merits of each, and ultimately making a recommendation to the Joint Body in a timely manner. On May 3rd the RFP was sent broadly across the region to known development, real estate, architect, design, construction, and other firms. Approximately 50 firms expressed interest in the project. Over the course of weeks, questions from these firms were compiled and Addendum 1 was sent in response. On June 18th a pre-proposal meeting with interested responders was held at City Hall and a site tour of the Old City Hall Property was conducted. Shortly thereafter, Addendum 2 was sent answering questions from the meeting and providing additional details related to the RFP. On July 25th, the due date for responses, two qualified proposals were received. Prior to July 30th each Committee member submitted their scoring of each of the proposals, while reserving the right to adjust their scores. On July 30th the Committee met, did a pros and cons exercise of each of the proposals (see attached photo), formulated questions for each proposal (see attached questions) and decided to interview both respondents. On August 6th, the Committee met with NovembrWhiskey / Pacific Companies and on August 8th the Committee met with deChase / ipCREF / Phoenix. The Committee was impressed with both proposals and appreciated the commitment of each proposer to the success of our community. Each proposal had its merits. After extensive discussion and in an effort to advance the process and fulfill the purpose of the Committee, a vote was taken and the Committee recommended the Novembrewhiskey / Pacific Companies proposal. This decision was made largely on the basis that it paid the City for the Old City Hall property, had a tighter completion timeline and proposed a more feasible public financing participation. The deChase / ipCREF / Phoenix proposal was visionary and provided a robust solution to downtown parking needs. However, it lacked specific detail on how the proposed public participation would work and required additional time to vet. The summary of the Committee’s scoring is attached. As you will see from the summary the total scores are literally the same. Note that one committee member adjusted their scoring after the interviews. The Committee felt a sense of urgency to move forward and that the vote was sufficient to advance this recommendation. The Committee is excited for the future of this significant project and the impact it will have on the revitalization of Downtown. Queston #TOTAL deChase/ipCREF Novemberwhiskey/Pacific 1. Is the proposal likely to achieve a signature or iconic mixed-use development that enhances the architectural character and economic vitality of downtown Meridian?90 80.00 80.00 2. Is the proposal likely to achieve substantial economic benefit to the community – especially those portions of the city located within the urban renewal district?90 71.50 78.00 3. Does the developer and their team have the qualifications and experience necessary to successfully complete the project?90 86.00 76.00 4. Does the developer have the financial ability and viable plan to complete the project in a timely manner?60 53.00 51.00 5. Does the Proposal substantially conform with the vision, goals and objectives of Destination Downtown, the MDC Revitalization Plan and the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian?60 50.00 52.50 6. Does the Proposal show commitment and detail regarding an appropriate plan for the property or properties and do they propose to implement their plan in the immediate future?60 45.50 53.00 7. What is the timeline for commencement and completion of the project?60 47.00 54.00 8. Does the Proposal provide for upgrading inadequate public improvements or facilities?30 29.00 27.00 9. Will the proposed project result in a net loss of parking?30 30.00 20.50 10. Does the proposal demonstrate creativity, innovation and sustainability in regard to the scope and design of the project?30 29.00 29.00 Total Points 600 521.00 521.00 Average 100 86.83 86.83 Rank 1 1 Old City Hall Scoring Metric Summary Committee Pros & Cons Discussion NovemBreWhiskey / Pacific Compainies Interview Questions Common Questions: 1. Discuss realities of financial numbers. 2. A. Define how this will become a uniquely Meridian project. B. How will you incorporate nature of downtown/activities – place making into project. 3. A. Please describe your parking proposal in detail including the net impact. B. Please provide detailed description of the ingress/egress plan for the site. 4. Please provide a detailed description of retail/office/residential mix. Is there the possibly for more retail and/or office? 5. Please provide detail on the execution of your proposed timeline. 6. What impact, if any, would a dip in the economy play in the completion of the development? 7. Would you move forward with other phases of your proposal if not selected for this RFP? 8. How familiar are you with the funding capabilities and the sunset of MDC and how does that factor into your proposed PPP? 9. The City and MDC are very committed to seeing a successful project occur. If selected, help us understand your level of commitment to the success of the project? APPLICANT SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 1. Likelihood of Building C being included. 2. Does proposed $460K of MDC funding include the amount from existing Dev Agreement? deChase Miksis / ipCREF / Phoenix Interview Questions Common Questions: 1. Discuss realities of financial numbers. 2. A. Define how this will become a uniquely Meridian project. B. How will you incorporate nature of downtown/activities – place making into project. 3. A. Please describe your parking proposal in detail including the net impact. B. Please provide detailed description of the ingress/egress plan for the site. 4. Please provide a detailed description of retail/office/residential mix. Is there the possibly for more retail and/or office? 5. Please provide detail on the execution of your proposed timeline. 6. What impact, if any, would a dip in the economy play in the completion of the development? 7. Would you move forward with other phases of your proposal if not selected for this RFP? 8. How familiar are you with the funding capabilities and the sunset of MDC and how does that factor into your proposed PPP? 9. The City and MDC are very committed to seeing a successful project occur. If selected, help us understand your level of commitment to the success of the project? APPLICANT SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 1. You show a new office building(s) on First Interstate property with an existing building and parking lot. There isn’t an explanation in the narrative – please describe what you are proposing, what discussions you have had with the other property owners and how that portion of the project will be developed. 2. Same question as No. 1 – on the multiple properties and owners covered by “Phasing 1”. 3. Same question as No. 1 – on the property owned by the City and covered by Phasing 1. 4. You are proposing that MDC buy the parking garage for $12.35M. Please describe you’re your proposal and whether this is essential to your proposal. 5. Same question as No. 4 as it relates to the proposed City contribution of $3.27M to reimburse for the land purchase and other fees. 6. You stated that you will be looking into other options for other public and private funding. What are you describing and is that necessary for you project to be successful? 7. Please define “live/work” “townhome” and “flat”? 1 C.Jay Coles From:Tammy de Weerd Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 1:37 PM To:C.Jay Coles Subject:FW: Exec Session for Tuesday Mayor Tammy de Weerd City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-489-0529| Fax: 208-884-8119 Built for Business, Designed for Living www.meridiancity.org/mayortammy All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. From: Bill Nary Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 9:32 AM To: Anne Little Roberts Cc: Genesis Milam; Ty Palmer; Joe Borton; Luke Cavener; Tammy de Weerd; Treg Bernt Subject: RE: Exec Session for Tuesday I hope that I can address some concerns that I have been reading over the last few days. Todd and I do intend to start off the meeting today with a similar clarification for the record on the purpose and intent of the RFP process and the direction that we will be seeking today. The RFP process is to create an open and competitive opportunity for proposers to submit their concept ideas for a project. We created a scope that we intended that they address as part of that proposal. That scope addressed financial viability of the project, experience of the project team in other developments, creation of a “signature” downtown project, parking, etc. The proposal is a concept not an application for a building so there will be details to work out as part of the contracting process. The discussion at the Committee partially centered on details of the two proposals that lacked some specificity and created some concerns for the committee. The discussion at the time was whether to allow the deChase group more time to address the financing issues about the level of public participation. As Councilmember Milam pointed out they were asked this specific question a number of times and the answer were very vague and non-specific about any alternatives. It was the advice of MDC Counsel and I that it would have been unfair to simply allow deChase more time to address this one issue since there was not an equal opportunity afforded to Novembrewsky. Basically our advice was these are the proposals, there has been adequate opportunity for the proposers to present you their design, concept, and abilities as requested and at this point the Committee could either recommend one, neither, both, or reject both. The group selected Novembrewsky. The process today is to report on that to the full Board and Council. The Committee was asked to make a recommendation based upon the agreed criteria and to do the work for the Board and Council to flesh out the details. That has been done. The intent of today is to report on that and have a Novembrewsky available for 2 questions. What is being asked of the two Boards is fairly simple. Do you like the concept and the team that is proposing it to carry it out? The MDC Board’s decision point is to agree to take on the project and the management of it as we move forward. The Council’s direction, if you like the concept and the team, will be to move forward to create the legal ability to carry out this concept plan. This would involve agreements for the property purchase by MDC and a public hearing on that transfer. MDC and Novembrewsky will need an agreement with timetables and commitments to the planning process to get the project built. There may be modifications to a degree to the concept. This is not a design-build drawing, it’s a concept plan. As the design process evolves things can change some based upon the request of the developer and the consent of the City and/or MDC. Today is perfect opportunity to lay out any questions or concerns you have with this concept and team. The Board and Council can accept, reject, or request to modify some of the proposal that is before it. If the Council wants a fuller presentation of the proposal that may take another meeting, but that is your choice. If the Council wants to hear the other proposal before making a decision, that is your choice. You also do not need to make a decision today if you need additional time to consider the proposal. At this juncture, if someone else is interested as was posed yesterday, that would not be acceptable to consider at this time. This process needs to finish and the proposal before you considered and decided upon before moving on. If the proposal is rejected, or if the agreements cannot be reached with Novembrewsky and MDC then the 2 nd proposer’s option could be considered. If rejected them the two Boards can decide how they wish to move forward after we have completed this process. I hope that helps and doesn’t add more questions than answers. From: Anne Little Roberts Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 8:02 AM To: Treg Bernt Cc: Genesis Milam; Ty Palmer; Bill Nary; Mayor and City Council Subject: Re: Exec Session for Tuesday In the committee meeting, I had asked for us to take more time and have further discussions - but Bill, please correct me if I misunderstood - we had to select between the two projects as they were proposed. Bill, I could probably use some clarification - since the actual scope of work is et to be determined - would we be selecting an actual project or are we selecting a development group to create a project? But going back through my notes - I see that we had expectations from the Novembrwisky project proposal that I don't think we have yet. I have down that we were supposed to get a institutional verification of their ability to do the project and also something in writing to confirm what Caleb said regarding his responsibility for the project since the application is in NovmberWiskey's name not Pacific Corp. Thank you, Anne Sent from my iPad On Aug 20, 2018, at 9:55 AM, Treg Bernt < tbernt@meridiancity.org > wrote: I agree with Gen. Im surprised that Ty is even considering it knowing his stance on the use of public funds. Thanks... My best, 3 -- Treg A. Bernt | City Councilman, Seat 4 City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Cell: (208) 409-7400 | Fax: (208) 898-5501 Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. On Aug 20, 2018 9:39 AM, Genesis Milam < gmilam@meridiancity.org > wrote: One of the main reasons that the other proposal was not selected and is not being presented is because they would only complete the project as proposed with about $15M in contributions from the City and MDC, so would probably be a waste of their/our time... ? Genesis Milam | Councilmember City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-489-0529 Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. From: Ty Palmer Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 5:48 PM To: Bill Nary Cc: Mayor and City Council Subject: Re: Exec Session for Tuesday Given that there were only two proposals for the RFP, and the other proposal was very significant as well, I would love to have them there to pitch council as well. Only good can come from more discussion and information. Thoughts? Ty Palmer | City Council, Seat 3 City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Call/Text: 208.954.6432 | Fax: 208.898.5501 4 On Aug 17, 2018, at 5:35 PM, Bill Nary < bnary@meridiancity.org > wrote: Mayor and Councilmembers; Tuesday looks like a long night. I wanted to give you a couple of heads up on information that was discussed at our agenda meeting. MDC Joint Meeting I spoke with Todd Lakey today. He has spoken with Cameron, Ashley, and Brad Hoaglun regarding the presentation. Brad will be presenting the Committee report. The principals of Novembrewhisky will be on hand for questions, but were not making a lengthy presentation due to time. We wanted to have more time for Q&A as possible. The Council will be asked to give the following direction: 1) Move forward with this proposal, or not; 2) If the direction is to move forward then we will enter into negotiations with MDC in regards to the property transfer; 3) If there are contingencies precedent to a transfer we need to identify what those are; 4) The transfer of property will require a subsequent public hearing; 5) Once the project scope is determined and application will have to be processed by Planning. The staff may have a rough idea as to what may or may not come back before the P&Z Commission or City Council in the future (Caleb can address that); 6) At this point we are just trying to determine whether we need to go further, but if the Council needs more time to ponder that is fine as well. We have an exec session scheduled at 5:15. Two of the items are a Legal Update on the Costco Appeal and the Union Negotiations. Costco Hearing Andrea Carroll had requested to supplement the record with information regarding internet browser information search history by Councilmembers Cavener and Palmer, financial transactions between the City and Brighton Corporation, and donations by Brighton Corporation to Councilmember Bernt. • The Judge determined that the plaintiff, Andrea Carroll, did not meet her burden to prove the relevance or materiality of the internet searches related to the decision. She raised the discussion that started with a citizen raising the issue of Costco in neighborhoods and the discussion of finding stores on Google that were in neighborhoods. Emily and Deb Nelson, on behalf of Costco, were able to explain that as to that issue it was early in the hearing and there was voluminous public testimony and dialogue on that specific issue. The Court did not address the question of whether a google search alone is an issue since the plaintiff could not show how it was relevant to the decision that was made. Since the plaintiff had not raised any specific concerns about internet browsing or identified specific searches that may have been relevant to her argument, the Judge denied including that in the record. 5 • The Judge found that the contributions from Brighton Corp to the City for Keith Bird Park, a Movie Night Sponsorship, State of the City sponsorships, and Taste of Meridian tickets were not by themselves a showing of pecuniary bias on the part of the City. The plaintiff could not show how that were related to the Costco application so the request to add them to the record was denied. • The contributions by Brighton Corp to Councilmember Bernt we argued successfully were not by the same entity as Brighton Corp, they were to a campaign, they were fully disclosed as required by law, and that no statute or case law requires an elected official to continually disclose campaign contributions in relation to land use application. The plaintiffs request was denied. The briefing schedule now allows for the plaintiffs to file a brief, the City and the Applicants to respond, and the plaintiffs get one more opportunity in writing to reply. This all ends by October 29 th and the oral argument is scheduled for November 27 th at 3:30. Union Negotiations We had another good discussion today. The Union requested the following counter proposal: a) A re-opener clause on wages. We identified the portion of Idaho Code that allows for them to request a re-opener, even if it is not in the contract. b) A re-opener clause is the City changes the benefits program that lowers the cost of the City’s contribution to the benefits plan. I think the State Code provision would apply in this case as well. c) They would like the sick leave buy down to be at a 2:1 purchase rather than 4:1. I will ask Finance to give an estimate on the cost of that. d) They asked to change the sick leave requirement from 3 days to 4 days of sick leave used that would trigger a requirement to have a doctor’s note. This actually would match their current schedule and the existing language was based upon the prior schedule. e) Article 19. We offered to leave it in place for FY19 and it would then sunset for the FY20 fiscal year. They asked that mandatory holdover would then be changed from time and half currently to double time for holdover only . We countered with holdover only for the Firefighters who are held over at the end of their scheduled shift, and not ones that are called to come in to work. The Chief and Tyler were going to see if we had a ballpark number for the amount of times this occurs in 1 year so we could understand the fiscal impact. We can discuss your thoughts on these on Tuesday. Regular Meeting Both Cherry Blossom and Tanner Creek public hearings at P&Z were lengthy. We anticipate at least Tanner Creek still being a long discussion. Maybe both. The land exchange at the end of your agenda is a simple one and we do not anticipate anyone being there. This is property in and around well 28 and is a clean-up transaction. Let me know if you have any questions. 6 Bill Nary | City Attorney & Risk Manager City of Meridian | City Attorney’s Office 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: | 208-898-5506 Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. 1 C.Jay Coles From:Cameron Arial Sent:Monday, August 20, 2018 4:59 PM To:Rick Ritter; citycouncil; Dave Winder, Ccim; Nathan Mueller; Steve Vlassek; Keith Bird; Tammy de Weerd; Rob McCarvel; Diane Bevan; Dan Basalone Cc:'bchoaglun@msn.com'; Julia Jones; Bill Nary; Ashley Squyres - Meridian Development Corporation (meridiandevelopmentcorp@gmail.com); Todd Lakey; C.Jay Coles Subject:RE: Old City Hall RFP Committee Recommendation Attachments:Committee Recommendation Memo 081718.pdf Hello Rick – Thank you for the additional follow-up and I appreciate your due diligence as I agree this is a significant decision/opportunity for our community. I have included a brief Committee Recommendation Memo that I was going to send out today and that Brad will present tomorrow at the meeting. Both bodies should have the original proposals. I hope this memo helps with some of your questions. I have answered the rest of your questions below in BLUE to the best of my ability. Fortunately for the Joint Meeting, you will be able to discuss with the Committee Members themselves (4 that represented the respective bodies and the 2 at-large Committee members) and staff at tomorrow’s meeting. Please don’t hesitate to reach out with any other questions and I look forward to being with you and the Joint Body tomorrow, Cameron Arial | Director City of Meridian | Community Development 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208) 489-0570 Built for Business, Designed for Living www.meridiancity.org All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. From: Rick Ritter [mailto:Rick@newventureslab.com] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 3:04 PM To: Cameron Arial <carial@meridiancity.org>; citycouncil <citycouncil@meridiancity.org>; Dave Winder, Ccim <Dave.Winder@paccra.com>; Nathan Mueller <nathan@zennify.com>; Steve Vlassek <steve@sundanceco.com>; Keith Bird <birdronaldkeith@msn.com>; Tammy de Weerd <tdeweerd@meridiancity.org>; Rob McCarvel <rmccarvel@unitedheritage.com>; Diane Bevan <diane@igniteidaho.com>; Dan Basalone <danandcarmen@sbcglobal.net> Cc: 'bchoaglun@msn.com' <bchoaglun@msn.com>; Julia Jones <Julia@gablegroupidaho.com>; Bill Nary <bnary@meridiancity.org>; Ashley Squyres - Meridian Development Corporation (meridiandevelopmentcorp@gmail.com) <meridiandevelopmentcorp@gmail.com>; Todd Lakey <todd@borton- lakey.com> Subject: Re: Old City Hall RFP Committee Recommendation 2 Cameron, Thank you for the evaluation materials you provided. Unfortunately, the materials did not give a complete answer to my original question. Based on the Board packet that Ashley sent out for the joint meeting I discovered that there was a set of questions that were asked of each proposer. The set was composed of two parts - common questions (asked of both proposers) and specific questions for each proposer. Did someone take notes on the responses to the questions? Are those available for our review? Since the evaluation sheet results were even and pros and cons board seems to favor the deChase proposal I am assuming the responses to the questions are what made the difference in the decision. I think it would be useful if those notes were made available to the members of both groups. THE QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMITTEE PRODUCED ARE AVAILABLE AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE MEMO. ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS WERE NOT RECORDED, BUT THE COMMITTEE ASKED ALL OF ITS QUESTIONS AND FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS TO THEIR SATISIFACTION IN REGARDS TO BOTH PROPOSALS. Did all members of the selection committee attend each of the proposer interviews? Did all members vote on the recommendation? Or did only those committee members that attended both meetings vote? ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS ATTENDED BOTH INTERVIEWS AND ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS VOTED. Finally, were the interviews recorded and if so, are those recordings available for review? I BELIEVE ASHLEY RECORDED A PORTION OF ONE INTERVIEW AND SHE IS INCLUDED HERE AND CAN RESPOND ACCORDINGLY. Sorry to be a pain with all the questions but I see this as perhaps the biggest and most important decision for the future of downtown Meridian that either organization will be involved in. It is critical that we make the correct decision for the long-term development of downtown. Thanks. Rick Rick Ritter Lab Director New Ventures Lab rick@newventureslab.com 208.870.0674 From: Cameron Arial < carial@meridiancity.org > Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 5:02:30 PM To: Rick Ritter; citycouncil; Dave Winder, Ccim; Nathan Mueller; Steve Vlassek; Keith Bird; Tammy de Weerd; Rob McCarvel; Diane Bevan; Dan Basalone Cc: 'bchoaglun@msn.com'; Julia Jones; Bill Nary; Ashley Squyres - Meridian Development Corporation (meridiandevelopmentcorp@gmail.com ); Todd Lakey Subject: RE: Old City Hall RFP Committee Recommendation Hello Rick – Thank you for this question and opportunity to provide greater detail. Below is a summary of the scoring. As you will see from the summary the total scores are literally the same. The Committee seriously considered both proposals and each had its pro/cons (please see the attached photo). In an effort to advance the process and fulfill the purpose of the Committee, a vote was taken and the Committee advanced the Novembrewhiskey proposal largely on the basis that it 3 paid the City for the property, had a tighter completion timeline and did not require public financing participation to complete. The deChase proposal was visionary and provided a robust solution to downtown parking , but required public participation that required additional time to vet. Note that one committee member adjusted their scores after the presentations. Others felt the vote was sufficient. We plan to provide a brief presentation at the Joint City Council/MDC meeting to explain the Committee’s decision-making process and ultimately the recommendation it made. Please let me know if you have any further questions and I look forward to working with you and the Joint Committee to advance this important initiative. Old City Hall Scoring Metric Summary Question # TOTAL deChase/ipCREF/Phoenix Novembrewhiskey/Pacific 1. Is the proposal likely to achieve a signature or iconic mixed-use development that enhances the architectural character and economic vitality of downtown Meridian? 90 80.00 80.00 2. Is the proposal likely to achieve substantial economic benefit to the community – especially those portions of the city located within the urban renewal district? 90 71.50 78.00 3. Does the developer and their team have the qualifications and experience necessary to successfully complete the project? 90 86.00 76.00 4. Does the developer have the financial ability and viable plan to complete the project in a timely manner? 60 53.00 51.00 5. Does the Proposal substantially conform with the vision, goals and objectives of Destination Downtown, the MDC Revitalization Plan and the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian? 60 50.00 52.50 6. Does the Proposal show commitment and detail regarding an appropriate plan for the property or properties and do they propose to implement their plan in the immediate future? 60 45.50 53.00 7. What is the timeline for commencement and completion of the project? 60 47.00 54.00 8. Does the Proposal provide for upgrading inadequate public improvements or facilities? 30 29.00 27.00 9. Will the proposed project result in a net loss of parking? 30 30.00 20.50 10 . Does the proposal demonstrate creativity, innovation and sustainability in regard to the scope and design of the project? 30 29.00 29.00 Total Points 600 521.00 521.00 Average 100 86.83 86.83 Rank 1 All the best, Cameron Arial | Director City of Meridian | Community Development 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208) 489-0570 Built for Business, Designed for Living www.meridiancity.org 4 All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. From: Rick Ritter [ mailto:Rick@newventureslab.com ] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 2:29 PM To: Cameron Arial < carial@meridiancity.org >; citycouncil < citycouncil@meridiancity.org >; Dave Winder, Ccim <Dave.Winder@paccra.com >; Nathan Mueller < nathan@zennify.com >; Steve Vlassek < steve@sundanceco.com >; Keith Bird < birdronaldkeith@msn.com >; Tammy de Weerd < tdeweerd@meridiancity.org >; Rob McCarvel <rmccarvel@unitedheritage.com >; Diane Bevan < diane@igniteidaho.com >; Dan Basalone <danandcarmen@sbcglobal.net > Cc: 'bchoaglun@msn.com' < bchoaglun@msn.com >; Julia Jones < Julia@gablegroupidaho.com >; Bill Nary <bnary@meridiancity.org >; Ashley Squyres - Meridian Development Corporation (meridiandevelopmentcorp@gmail.com ) < meridiandevelopmentcorp@gmail.com >; Todd Lakey < todd@borton- lakey.com > Subject: Re: Old City Hall RFP Committee Recommendation Cameron, Will the evaluation sheets and analysis for this decision be made available to MDC members prior to the meeting? I am interested in understanding the basis for the Selection Committee's recommendation. Or will there be some type of presentation at the meeting to explain how this decision was made? Rick Rick Ritter Lab Director New Ventures Lab rick@newventureslab.com 208.870.0674 From: Cameron Arial < carial@meridiancity.org > Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 4:50:18 PM To: citycouncil; Dave Winder, Ccim; Nathan Mueller; Steve Vlassek; Keith Bird; Tammy de Weerd; Rick Ritter; Rob McCarvel; Diane Bevan; Dan Basalone Cc: 'bchoaglun@msn.com'; Julia Jones; Bill Nary; Ashley Squyres - Meridian Development Corporation (meridiandevelopmentcorp@gmail.com ); Todd Lakey Subject: Old City Hall RFP Committee Recommendation Hello City Council and MDC Commissioners – The Old City Hall RFP Review Committee has concluded its work and after much deliberation, it recommends the Novembrewhiskey / Pacific Companies proposal on to you for your consideration. Both responses were solid proposals and we are fortunate to have this level of commitment from these stellar teams in our community. I want to personally thank the Committee and staff for their diligence and commitment. We anticipate a Joint Meeting will be scheduled soon and we look forward to moving this process forward. All the best, Cameron Arial | Director City of Meridian | Community Development 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208) 489-0570 5 Built for Business, Designed for Living www.meridiancity.org All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. C.Jay Coles From:Lindsey Bowshier <lbowshier@tributemedia.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 1:52 PM To:Tammy de Weerd; Anne Little Roberts; Luke Cavener; Ty Palmer; Treg Bernt; jborton@meridancity.org; C.Jay Coles; Dave.Winder@paccra.com; nathan@zennify.com; steve@sundanceco.com; birdronaldkeith@msn.com; Rick@newventureslab.com; rmccarvel@unitedheritage.com; diane.t.bevan@gmail.com; DANL BASALONE Cc:Cameron Arial; Ashley Ford-Squyres Subject:Old City Hall RFP Good afternoon, Mayor Tammy de Weerd, City Council, and MDC Board, I am shareholder in a Meridian downtown business (Tribute Media), VP of the Meridian Downtown Business Association, as well as a resident of Meridian who lives less than one mile from our downtown core. You’ve received a letter from MDBA past president, Joe Kozlowski, on behalf of the MDBA board, which accurately reflects our stance, but additionally, I would like to express my personal thoughts and concerns regarding the RFP for old city hall. First, I would like to thank those of you on the RFP committee who dedicated considerable time to making your recommendations. I was pleased that MDC voted unanimously to accept the recommended project. I trust the committee and process that was put in place to steer this decision. If the people we entrusted to make an educated recommendation say the deChase Miksis project is not financially feasible and have cited very specific asks of the city and MDC that cannot be met, we should trust they did the work they were asked to do to make this decision. While I do understand the reason for the comments by council members Cavener and Palmer that, with only two proposals, it is more feasible for the entire council to evaluate both options, by deviating from the process that was “advertised” and essentially giving developers the run around, the city has likely discouraged participation in future RFPs. The last thing we need is a response rate even lower than two in the future. To address council member Palmer’s comments on finding budget for the millions needed for deChase project: While I am happy to learn there may be items in the city budget that can be reallocated to downtown development and would love to know more about that, I am incredibly concerned about taking the time to do so right now, for this project, and further delaying such an important catalyst project for downtown. Finally, for what it’s worth, I would like to express my personal support for the Novembrewhiskey project. I know a bit about The Pacific Companies from working with them on their web presence and have interviewed residents of their communities. TPC is an excellent organization with great values and I believe that bringing them into a downtown project would be great for future downtown Meridian residents. I also feel strongly that Josh and Lori Evarts are in touch with the needs of our community and are placing the best interest of Meridian Downtown first in their proposed project. The Novembrewhiskey project checks all the boxes. Our downtown needs to see progress yesterday; this is our best shot at showing the residents and businesses in Meridian that we are serious about creating places for them to live, work, play, and shop. Thank you for your time and attention. Regards, Lindsey Bowshier 1120 Clarinda St. Meridian, ID 83642 1 C.Jay Coles From:Treg Bernt Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 1:07 PM To:Tejay Rogers Cc:Tammy de Weerd; Anne Little Roberts; Luke Cavener; Ty Palmer; jborton@meridancity.org; C.Jay Coles; Cameron Arial; Ashley Ford; Dave.Winder@paccra.com; nathan@zennify.com; steve@sundanceco.com; birdronaldkeith@msn.com; Rick@newventureslab.com; rmccarvel@unitedheritage.com; diane.t.bevan@gmail.com; danandcarmen@sbcglobal.net Subject:Re: Development of Old City Hall Tejay, Thank you so much for your concern. I promise, your voice has been heard. Looking forward to tomorrow... :) My best, -- Treg A. Bernt | City Councilman, Seat 4 City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Cell: (208) 409-7400 | Fax: (208) 898-5501 Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. On Aug 27, 2018 12:53 PM, Tejay Rogers <tejay@weatherheadmusic.com> wrote: Dear Mayor Tammy, City Council, and MDC Board, My name is TeJay Rogers. I am a resident of Meridian, a small business owner in the Old Downtown Meridian area and the current Treasurer for the Meridian Downtown Business Association. I am writing this letter as a concerned business owner and resident of Meridian, Idaho. The opinions expressed in this letter are my own and do not in any way represent that of the Meridian Downtown Business Association. After this past Tuesday’s meeting regarding the recent RFP for the development of Old City Hall, there was a high level of concern that the selection process was either handled poorly or was ignored all together. This has raised additional concern of a possibility that the recent proposals will be ignored and the idea will fizzle and die. Unfortunately, due to the time of the meeting and my work schedule, I was unable to attend this meeting. As such I cannot speak as to what happened there or what should have been done. I can, however, provide my point of view. What I have seen and what I see daily in downtown Meridian. 1 Downtown business owners, myself included, have seen other RFPs come to life and quickly die. It is disheartening. I have no idea what amount of time it takes for a prospective developer to submit a proposal for an RFP. I imagine the time investment is significant. I do know, however, if there is no integrity in the selection process, there is no motive for future developers to bother submitting proposals. Or even think about investing resources in Downtown Meridian, for that matter. I ride my bicycle to work almost every day. That may seem trivial to you. But it is a big deal to me. Downtown Meridian is beautiful! I stop in local shops and I know the owners by name. They love it here just as much as I do. But many of them are struggling despite economic growth. We all sit in meetings and hear about the growth that is coming around us. It is sad to think there is a possibility that, said growth could happen all around us and pass Old Town Meridian by. It is even more saddening to think of what happens to all the little shops and entrepenuaers currently in the Old Town area. Some of them may not survive. I am asking everyone involved to please stand up and take action! Don’t let yet another RFP die. Let’s provide a catalysis for the economical growth of Downtown Meridian. Follow the proposed selection process and let integrity rule the day. Sincerely, TeJay Rogers Owner/Operator of Meridian Music & Arts/Weatherhead Music (208) 412-4748 | tejay@weatherheadmusic.com 2 C.Jay Coles From:Joseph S. Kozlowski <joe@kozlowski-law.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 12:11 PM To:Tammy de Weerd; Anne Little Roberts; Luke Cavener; Ty Palmer; Treg Bernt; jborton@meridancity.org; C.Jay Coles; Cameron Arial; meridiandevelopmentcorp@gmail.com; Dave.Winder@paccra.com; nathan@zennify.com; steve@sundanceco.com; birdronaldkeith@msn.com; Rick@newventureslab.com; rmccarvel@unitedheritage.com; diane.t.bevan@gmail.com; danandcarmen@sbcglobal.net; Bill Nary; todd@borton- lakey.com Cc:'Nick Grove'; 'Lindsey Bowshier'; 'Tejay Rogers'; John Forsberg; 'Michelle Glaze'; 'Matt McAnulty'; 'Julia Jones'; 'Richard Bonney' Subject:MDBA Board on Development of Old City Hall Dear Mayor Tammy, City Council, and MDC Board, I write this as Past President of the Meridian Downtown Business Association (MDBA) on behalf of the MDBA Board. We are excited about the opportunity for a major development project in our downtown. We see this as a catalyst project that will spur continued growth and progress for downtown Meridian. We also recognize that there is a sense of urgency about this first major development. We understand that there are developers who are waiting for just such a project before they proceed with their own plans. While listening to the information presented by Mr. Hoaglun this past Tuesday, who spoke for the joint subcommittee, it appeared that the City Council and the Meridian Development Corporation (MDC) chose a selection process to vet the proposals submitted in response to the RFP. As the meeting progressed, it also appeared that the selection process was ultimately ignored. We are concerned that changing the selection process midstream will have a negative effect on downtown development as future developers will not want to invest in our downtown core. We are excited that the RFP provided two great proposals to be reviewed. Both would be an amazing catalyst project for our downtown; we hope that you are able to move forward and not lose any momentum this RFP has generated. Thank you, Joseph Kozlowski, Past President MDBA 1 C.Jay Coles From:CEO <ceo@meridianchamber.org> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 11:55 AM To:Anne Little Roberts; Luke Cavener; Ty Palmer; Treg Bernt; jborton@meridancity.org; C.Jay Coles; Cameron Arial; meridiandevelopmentcorp@gmail.com; Dave.Winder@paccra.com; nathan@zennify.com; steve@sundanceco.com; birdronaldkeith@msn.com; Rick@newventureslab.com; rmccarvel@unitedheritage.com; diane.t.bevan@gmail.com; danandcarmen@sbcglobal.net; Tammy de Weerd Subject:Old City Hall RFP Process Dear City Council members, Mayor de Weerd and Board Members of Meridian Development Corporation, On behalf of the Meridian Chamber of Commerce I would like to share our support and excitement with the two proposals that are being considered for the Old City Hall property in Downtown Meridian. We appreciate the recent progress and ongoing commitment of the many stakeholders that have worked diligently to redevelop this property. A project of this scale brings a renewed sense of energy and focus to the heart of Meridian. This investment to our Downtown community could help create a regional destination for Meridian that could attract new investment, residents, and visitors. Investment in Downtown Meridian could also help bring new jobs and an increase in property value and visibility for existing businesses. We hope that there will be a continued collaborative effort to move this project forward in an efficient manner. Investment in Downtown Meridian will have a positive impact on residents and visitors for generations. Putting aside this project at this time will severely hinder valuable momentum and opportunity for our Downtown. We hope that Meridian will continue to be a place that welcomes new investment and supports the existing business community with efficient processes and procedures. Once again, we appreciate all the support and service that you show our business community. Your leadership has created a vibrant community that people want to work and live in. We hope to continue that momentum by moving forward on a project like this in our Downtown. Respectfully, Rich Bonney | CEO Meridian Chamber of Commerce Phone: (208) 888-2817 Cell: (208) 604-5746 Email: ceo@meridianchamber.org 1