Laserfiche WebLink
He noted that those two elements were approved, and Capstone proceeded with the preliminary <br />plat in order to reach this point. He stated that they are concerned because there is now a discussion <br />about underwriting and that is being used in a manner to say that if Capstone does not want to go <br />through underwriting, it could forego the $350,000 the City offered to pay for the tree preservation <br />area or could pay $272,000 for Riverdale Drive. He stated that means that the framework <br />originally approved as significantly changed. He noted that the initial funding gap in the original <br />framework for the County was $117,000. <br /> <br />Chairperson Riley thanked Capstone for being present as they have been a great partner and <br />developer in the community. He stated that it appears that Capstone agrees to the framework but <br />is concerned with the tree preservation dollars and the Ehlers underwriting. He stated that it <br />appears the Pearson family is concerned with the land value. <br /> <br />Mr. Dobbs commented that he understands the land value is an estimate but there is no estimate <br />for the potential return on investment for the City owning the land if the grant funds will all be <br />used for that acquisition. He noted that the Bowers Drive portion also reduces the City contribution <br />and was not included in the original framework. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove commented that she feels that she understands both sides after hearing <br />input. She asked if there would be time to gain additional outside funds associated with the tree <br />preservation land. <br /> <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill stated that staff has been discussing opportunities with <br />different outside groups that are providing input to the City. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove stated that it sounds like these issues were perhaps unknowns and they <br />are now fitting them into the framework. She stated that she would like to stick to the original <br />framework to the extent possible and encouraged staff to continue to look for funding with the <br />option of perhaps using the County HRA funds as well. <br /> <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill stated that if the road wants to be built, it has been the input <br />from the County that the City would need to purchase that parcel. He noted that staff continues to <br />have discussions with the County to investigate options that would not include purchase of the <br />parcel. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove stated that it appears there is still time to move forward with the original <br />framework split and continue to look for funds to use for tree preservation and the County portion. <br />She stated that the consensus throughout this discussion has included the preserved trees and the <br />developer presented that plan. <br /> <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill noted that staff is attempting to stay close to the original <br />framework and provided details. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked if a cul-de-sac is needed at the end of Bowers Drive. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee / January 19, 2021 <br />Page 5 of 14 <br /> <br />