01/14/21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Member Heineman asked and received confirmation that the decision tonight would be related to the site selection and not whether the water treatment plant is wanted or the design of it. Chairperson Steffen referenced the cons of the public works site noted in the case, which are related to economic development. He noted that this site is probably the best site with the most interest in the past. He commented that the site is also shovel ready. Economic Development Manager Sullivan commented that the deals have been close in the past but have not been able to close. He stated that there has been ongoing interest in the site in the past but per the direction of the EDA and Council he is not currently marketing the site. Member Riley commented that it is clear that the discussion should look at City owned sites, which takes away the site to the west. He referenced the B and A site that will be impacted by Highway 10 and would perhaps not be marketable as it would not have access or visibility from the highway. He asked for more input on that site as it is close to the preferred site. Deputy City Administrator Gladhill commented that a lot of that property will take up with the slope for the highway project. He stated that if the site were used for this purpose, retaining walls would be needed and additional costs could be needed because of the proximity to the railroad. He stated that a deep dive was not completed on the site because of the challenges. Member Riley commented that he misread the number for that site within the case. He acknowledged that this case is not discussing the necessity for the water treatment plant but noted that this cost and usage only applies to the users on City water. Chairperson Steffen asked if the B and A site would not be likely to ever be developed following the highway project. Deputy City Administrator Gladhill commented that there will be less buildable area than there appears to be today but noted that the adjacent user may have some interest in that site. Chairperson Steffen asked the last offer for the public works site. Economic Development Manager Sullivan replied that the offer was $675,000 for seven acres. He stated that if the water treatment facility were located on the public works site it would be hard to say exactly what would be left for economic development because of storm water needs. Chairperson Steffen asked where the funds would have gone if that land had been sold, whether it would go to the EDA or general fund. Economic Development Manager Sullivan stated that whatever source was used to acquire the parcel, it would be prorated back to that source. He believed it was acquired using public works funds but was not 100% positive. Deputy City Administrator Gladhill stated that the site was purchased for public works and therefore if there were any land sales, those funds would go back to public works. Economic Development Authority/ January 14, 2021 Page 8 of 14