05/28/13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Commissioner Riley stated the best use of the triangle is a pond and this situation is the perfect example of why a City should not be a developer. He noted the four lots abutting the park are close to being salable so maybe that should be considered. Commissioner LeTourneau stated he shares that concern (why the City should not be a developer) but the reality is that the HRA needs to deal with this, mitigate the situation, and still realize the vision. He stated if it raises the cost by only eight cents per square foot, maybe that is worth taking on to drive towards the vision. Finance Director Lund stated the $6.50 /square foot incorporated the $461,000 contract at that time. She explained that Options 3 and 4, when originally approved, used $530,000 from the Landfill Fund and adding in City fees will raise the amount to $846,000. Finance Director Lund stated the HRA also needs to consider how long it will be before the Landfill Fund can be repaid and the dollars be used elsewhere. She noted this will bring the Landfill Fund down to $1.3 million. Commissioner Tossey stated he has opposed this from the start and asked why, after the HRA knew the four lots would not raise enough revenue, it decided to quadruple that. He voiced support for "cutting the losses" with the four lots on the park. Commissioner Tossey stated he has been approached by residents of this area who are furious with what is going on as there are two large mounds of dirt they can view from their front yard, as well as culverts sitting there. He stated it is time to re -grade the site and move on and since the soil on the park side has been corrected, he may support Option 2 at this point. Chairperson Backous stated proformas, by their very nature, are estimates and had been used when making this decision. He asked what is the difference between going from the best -case to worst -case scenario, noting if it is not that great maybe the HRA should just do it all. Commissioner Strommen noted there are no good options but she would agree on Option 2 because it minimizes losses and allows keeping some of the vision to develop the park lots. Then the rest of the property can sit until it can be determined whether the lots as designed were well conceived. Commissioner Strommen stated she had supported moving forward when it looked like it would be of marginal benefit; however, after review of the new information it makes less sense to move forward with all of the property. Commissioner Riley asked if the cost to remove the piles of dirt and culverts had been factored in. City Engineer Westby explained the penalty cost to the developer includes smoothing the dirt, re- leveling the top soil, and restoring turf with seed. However, the on -site pond depression stays. Motion by Commissioner Tossey, seconded by Commissioner Riley, to direct staff to pursue Option 2) Develop four lots on the west side of the Park. Housing and Redevelopment Authority / May 28, 2013 Page 3 of 5