Minutes - Council Work Session - 02/11/2020 - Joint

Home

Councilmember Kuzma suggested that the City proceed with the benefit analysis study to support any potential assessment. Deputy City Administrator Gladhill stated that Capstone does have an aggressive schedule for the next phase of development, and they would not be able to build on those lots within the realignment area until the Puma Street agreement is finalized. Planning Commissioner Anderson asked what would happen in the case that the third party does not move forward, specifically whether the City and Capstone would be then stuck with a 50/50 split. Deputy City Administrator Gladhill stated that as long as the City follows the proper metrics, appraisals show the increase in value is equal to the assessment amount; the City would be fully protected. Councilmember Heinrich asked for input from Capstone or their thoughts on the potential cost- share split. Ms. Lorch stated that Capstone was aware that there was a need for an assessment on this part of the parcel and was under the impression that it would be a similar cost-share to the previous. She stated that they hoped that the cost-share would be less with another developer. She stated that Capstone did fund 18 percent of the improvement cost for Bunker Lake Boulevard because it felt that improvement would provide a benefit to its residents. She stated that Capstone would agree to the third split, with the caveat that the City and other developer equally contribute. Planning Commissioner Woestehoff asked if there are safety concerns with Alpine in that area. Police Captain Bluml stated that this would correct the safety concern with the Alpine walking trail that previously existed. Planning Commissioner Woestehoff suggested that the City take a larger share in this from a safety standpoint and contribute at a rate of 50/25/25. Deputy City Administrator Gladhill noted that the Public Works Committee can discuss that option. Councilmember Menth asked if Paxmar is on board with this proposal. Deputy City Administrator Gladhill confirmed that Paxmar does not agree with this proposal. He noted that Paxmar was invited to attend tonight but chose not to be a part of the discussion. Councilmember Musgrove asked if Paxmar would perhaps accept the cost-share of 50/25/25 in order to allow this project to proceed at a quicker pace and without the need for the additional study. City Council Work Session/February 11,2020 Page 4 of 10