2/2/2016
Leavenworth Echo | Upper Valley MEND, city officials working to try and save Meadowlark project
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Upper Valley MEND, city officials working to try and save Meadowlark project
Ian Dunn
Editor
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Officials from Upper Valley MEND and the city of Leavenworth have working to try and
save the Meadowlark affordable housing development. MEND is trying to find ways to
make up for a $2 million shortfall on the project. On Jan. 12, MEND sent a proposal to the city suggesting ways to cut $796,000 from the
project cost through various concessions from the city. "One of the tougher issues for the city is some of the things they are asking the city for,
talking to our city attorney, the city council does not have the authority to do. That is
not saying the city is not willing to explore those areas," said Joel Walinski,
Leavenworth city administrator. "It's not a matter of the city council having a meeting
and saying, we are going to go ahead and do this."
The city council will consider some of these proposals at the Jan. 26 meeting. Results
were not available before press time. Walinski said the council will try and direct the
planning commission to start exploring the comprehensive plan, the transportation
element and a few other planning documents put together to run the city. The council would direct the planning commission to explore those documents and make Chuck Reppas
some recommended changes to create the authority for the city council to begin making
concessions or foregoing fees on things. "That's where we are right now. I understand they are in a time crunch. They want the
city to give them a specific number or specific idea what we can do," Walinski said. "I
know, talking with Mayor Farivar, while we're interested in exploring these, it is very
important the community have the opportunity to see what changes are being proposed
and what authorities are being proposed so people will have the opportunity to comment
on those."
Some of the concessions MEND is asking for would require the city to modify the
Leavenworth Municipal Code or LMC. The first thing that needs to be done, Walinski
said, is to provide the council with the authority to make changes to the city code. In a memo to MEND, Walinski said he was trying to point out that the city understands
what they are being asked to do. The city is willing to explore the pathway to get there,
he said. "There needs to be a really robust public process to have the community conversation
about changing to the comprehensive plan, and the changes to the code. Those changes,
whether in the comprehensive plan or the code, do have implications on a lot of
different things," Walinski said. "Especially when you start talking about rates and fees."
Walinski said the City Attorney, Thom Graafstra always cautions, the city can do these
things, but it must be fair and equitable. A recent audit of the city also provided some
caution. The auditors said the city can examine these things, but there must be a very Joel Walinski
clear decision making process. The best way to combat liability for the city is to show there has been a clear decision making pathway, Walinski said. "That's what needs to be developed. That clear decision making record. That is just not there right now. That has to be
developed. That's going to take some time," Walinski said. "That is one of the issues that goes back and forth. This is going
take time. I know, from talking to the folks at MEND, they're a little bit under the time crunch. They want an identifiable
solution. Not sure we can give that to them at this point in time without going through our processes."
At this point, Walinski said there has been no talk of scaling back the project to save money. He points out the project has
been scaled back considerably over the years. "Over the course of four or five years, the original CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) and the plan set up is quite
a bit different that what is being proposed today. The plan, at that point in time, called for a 60 unit development for UV
MEND and a number of other homes," Walinski said. "Now, we're down to a phase one, 29­30 homes. I think it has been
scaled down. Kudos to Chuck (Reppas) and Brian (Koblenz), they've taken phase one and tightened that up in a few more
ways. Phase one has 30 homes, but here's what phase two and phase three looks like."
The city council recently approved the extension of the Chumstick Trail, along with water and sewer lines and a lift station to
the Meadowlark property. Even though Meadowlark may not happen, this project was still a benefit to the city. "In the short run, it provides new, available land serviced by city utilities for an area that could support up to 120 homes.
That is a good thing for the city. There is a way to pay for it," Walinski said. "We've put together the LID so that the property
http://www.leavenworthecho.com/print.asp?SectionID=5&SubsectionID=5&ArticleID=9899
1/2
2/2/2016
Leavenworth Echo | Upper Valley MEND, city officials working to try and save Meadowlark project
owners and the market rates units from this development pay their fair share of the project. At the same time, the city has
said we are supportive of the Meadowlark development for the affordable homes it would bring."
The $750,000 CDBG is for the development of infrastructure on the Meadowlark site, but the city cannot use the money if
there are no affordable homes in the development. Walinski said they have been in discussion with the Department of
Commerce on that question. They have not heard back from them yet. "We had a very good discussion with them. They were checking into a few different guidelines in place. When it comes to
CDBG funds, especially for housing, there are some national target funds or national targets that have to be hit," Walinski
said. "So there is no wiggle room on those. There are some state guidelines. There might be a little more flexibility in those.
So we've asked them to look at what that flexibility is."
Upper Valley MEND Executive Director, Chuck Reppas, said they have been busy trying to develop plans and strategies how
the city can help them, within the confines of how a city works. He believes it has been going as well as it could be going. The biggest item for MEND is the forgoing of the system development charges, $391,000. "It is a big piece of the pie, but it will require quite a bit of process. The city will have to go through a process of changing
the municipal code to specifically allow non­profit, affordable housing to forgo these fees," Reppas said. "I think we are okay
with it taking awhile, as long as the city shows the willingness to work on it and push that process forward."
Reppas said they know the city will be taking in public comment, at least two times. "Obviously, depending on how that public comment comes in, the city may decide to do something different. The risk element
is probably in public comment and how that rolls out. We just don't know," Reppas said. "We're willing to say to ourselves,
let's keep processing forward, trying to make things work, while the city is working on this process, as long as it is heading
in the right direction."
The time crunch for MEND is that they really need to be starting construction in the spring, Reppas said. If MEND is feeling
confident, then they could open the project to bids, which will give them an idea of the costs for site development and house
construction. The numbers on that should come by the end of February, Reppas said. "That is going to very telling to see if we are finding enough savings there, together with what the city can do to make this
thing happen," Reppas said. In terms of scaling down the project to save money, Reppas it is not possible with the way things are configured on the site. "You have to get these roads in, the infrastructure, water and sewer into the site. It is access locked, so all these things have
to come into it. That is why the project has such a high cost profile," Reppas said. "You can't just take a little piece and go
with it because it requires all these things to be attached, functioning and working. It's always why we've tried to maximize
the number of lots because we know we have to go through all this upfront cost."
With enough quantity, Reppas said they can offset the infrastructure costs. It is not really possible to scale it down. "That's where we've been for a long time, trying to wrestle through this project. If we had a nice little half acre piece
adjacent to a main road, we would have been done three years ago," Reppas said. "That is the nature of the project on the
other side. If we can get 60 houses, then every house, affordable and market rate, can make a big difference in this
community, with this housing crisis we are facing."
If MEND backs out, Reppas said it probably means they are selling the property. His guess is that whomever buys it would be
someone interested in building market rate homes. At the same time, MEND could sell off a portion of the property and come
back with a smaller project. Reppas said they will explore that. If they have to go down that road, these are the types of possibilities they will explore.
But that would mean mothballing for another year and try to figure out a different game plan. "Then, we have to reengineer ourselves internally, if that is the case, because we would not be working on the Meadowlark
project," Reppas said. "If we stop at this point, there is a whole body of work to make sure the rest of MEND is secure and in
good shape. And we're finding a way to liquidate the whole thing." Currently, the Meadowlark project includes 30 affordable Community Land Trust homes, also 24 market rate homes and six
market rate lots. The Agnew/Hebert portion is another 40 market rate homes, while the Prey portion is 20 market rate home.
A total of 120 homes are proposed. The overall Meadowlark project cost is $17 million. Ian Dunn can be reached at 548­5286 or [email protected].
Related Links:
">Content © 2016
">Software © 1998­2016 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved
http://www.leavenworthecho.com/print.asp?SectionID=5&SubsectionID=5&ArticleID=9899
2/2