Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lake County delays Oakwood Homes construction agreement for 102 housing project
Summary
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners voted to table consideration of a construction agreement with Clayton Properties Group (Oakwood Homes) for the Housing at 102 project until the boards May 27 meeting while final contract language and buyer interest are resolved.
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday voted to table consideration of a construction agreement with Clayton Properties Group, doing business as Oakwood Homes, for the Housing at 102 development until the boards May 27 meeting.
Housing program manager Jackie Wellahan told commissioners the county and Oakwood are "about 95% there" on a construction contract but that "there's some final details" and legal language the parties still need to resolve before the county should sign. She said county staff and Oakwood attorneys planned further negotiations and expected to provide a revised clean draft to the board soon.
Wellahan said the project originally drew 16 lottery winners but that "we're down to nine buyers," with attrition tied largely to buyers finding the price points unaffordable at current interest rates. She said 85 additional applicants remain on the project website and about 35 had indicated they intended to apply for an upcoming lottery; the transcript lists a June 13 application deadline and a July 3 lottery date for the next round.
Wellahan identified three contract issues still being finalized: the county's planned purchase of two units, a buyer credit, and the performance bond or other surety that guarantees construction. She said the county will begin executing buyer contracts once the construction agreement is final and the county and developer have confidence they can move to construction and sales.
County attorneys had exchanged multiple redlined drafts, and Wellahan said the remaining work is largely reconciling wording so both parties "are saying the same thing but we're saying it differently." County staff scheduled another meeting with Oakwood this week to get a clean draft to the board, and the board approved a motion to postpone formal approval to the May 27 meeting.
The board's action was procedural: a motion to table the construction-agreement consideration until Tuesday, May 27 carried unanimously. No final contract amount or final buyer purchase prices were specified in the public record presented at the meeting.
The postponement preserves the board's ability to review a cleaned-up agreement after legal review and gives county staff time to confirm buyer commitments and contract surety terms before signing.
Commissioners said they preferred to avoid approving the contract until county attorneys and Oakwood had resolved the open issues. The board did not vote on or otherwise approve any substantive contract terms at the meeting.
No implementation date or notice to proceed was authorized at Tuesday's meeting; staff said they would return with the revised agreement and any final recommendations at the May 27 meeting.

