The Heights Condominium Association project was central to the board’s agenda, with significant delays attributed to inflation, tariffs, and more condemned balconies than initially identified. Despite undergoing four rounds of cost engineering, the project remained over budget, necessitating a revision. The revised budget included an adjusted contingency of 5% and an increase in administrative costs by $30,000 to $50,000. These changes were necessary to cover both incurred and anticipated costs related to the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district and Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA). To accommodate these budgetary adjustments, the HRA and fund loan amounts were modified, with an interest rate range proposed from 0% to 3.75%, depending on the final bond interest rate, which is expected to be lower than initially projected.

The development agreement outlined a total principal balance of $2.8 million, including the inter-fund loan and the city’s bond, with a maximum bond interest rate of 6.25%. The agreement requires approval of construction plans by the city’s building official before construction funds can be accessed. Furthermore, the Heights Association must secure a professional construction manager and submit verified construction costs. The reimbursement process entails collaboration between the Heights Association and their construction manager to request funds from the authority and the city. The agreement also mandates a minimum balance for the Heights Replacement Reserve Fund, with annual audits and reports from a professional property manager on the property’s condition.

Concerns were raised about the reduced contingency for cost overruns, with one participant stating, “We only have a 5% contingency and that makes me extremely nervous,” particularly in light of potential future price increases due to tariffs. The possibility of unforeseen complications during the demolition phase, such as buried plumbing or drainage issues, was also highlighted. A commissioner sought assurance that these risks had been adequately planned for, given the engineer’s involvement in the project for eight years.

Frustrations were expressed over administrative delays, with questions about the accountability for these setbacks. One commissioner emphasized the impact of these delays on residents awaiting construction and called for contractor responsibility for any further delays or increased costs. A representative of the Heights Homeowners Association acknowledged the board’s prior approval of a loan for the project and expressed frustration about barriers to obtaining loans for residents, which favored investors. Efforts to improve project outcomes included changing property management companies to secure more competitive construction bids.

The structural integrity of the building, particularly the residential portion and its connection to the garage, was addressed, with assurances given that structural assessments had been conducted and no concerns were identified regarding the residential components. The conversation also touched on the potential impact of the project on the city’s bond rating, with existing protections in place for loan repayment expected to mitigate financial risks.

The meeting also addressed the status of balconies at the condominium complex. As of 2022, none had been condemned, but by summer 2024, six rear balconies were condemned due to structural issues. Eventually, all remaining balconies were condemned by summer 2025, leading to plans for their removal and replacement with Juliet balconies at the rear and more durable materials at the front. The garage, which had undergone recent renovations, was discussed in terms of its functionality and compliance with code requirements for parking spaces.