Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Musgrove commented that she does not see the developer gaining anything <br />differently because the City would be acquiring land in order to construct a road through that <br />parcel. <br /> <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill stated that underwriting is not recommended because of the <br />new version but more related to the more known costs. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove commented that she does not fully understand the implications of <br />underwriting. <br /> <br />Chairperson Riley provided additional details on the underwriting process and rate of return on the <br />investment related to the City contribution. <br /> <br />Mr. Bona commented that they did two assessment projects that included City contributions, <br />Bunker Lake and Puma, and there was never a discussion of underwriting or Capstone opening its <br />books. He stated that they would like to continue to follow that process. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff stated that he was unsure that underwriting is the right process for <br />this. He acknowledged that without the County property, this project would die because the <br />collector road cannot go through. <br /> <br />Mr. Dobbs stated that when the original framework was done the required right-of-way was not <br />known and so they understand that more details are known at this time. He stated that he has a lot <br />of residential, commercial, and industrial development experience and while it makes sense to use <br />underwriting to show benefit on commercial development it would be unrealistic to do that for <br />residential development. He stated that he does not speak for Capstone but based on his experience <br />in development it would not make sense for Capstone to open its books for underwriting. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Musgrove, seconded by Councilmember Woestehoff, to recommend <br />City Council approve the alternate cost share framework without the underwriting. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Riley, Councilmembers Musgrove and Woestehoff. <br />Voting No: None. <br /> <br />5.03: Consider Water Treatment Plant Site Selection Recommendation <br /> <br />City Engineer Westby reviewed the staff report and stated that engineering and public works staff <br />recommend locating the proposed water treatment plant (WTP) on the Public Works Site due to <br />that site having the lowest estimated construction cost; the ability to maintain control over the <br />cemetery access road; the ability to most cost-effectively share security infrastructure, an <br />emergency generator, and garage space; and significant operational efficiencies and cost savings <br />of the life of the WTP. Staff also recommends proceeding with the proposed WTP construction <br />in as timely a manner as possible to ensure the City is able to continue to provide water in <br />compliance with Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) health based values (HBV) for <br />manganese, The City has been running only two to four municipal wells to supply water to the <br />City since the summer of 2019, meaning these wells are constantly in operation and are not able <br />Public Works Committee / January 19, 2021 <br />Page 7 of 14 <br /> <br />