Laserfiche WebLink
City Engineer Westby replied that staff has been working through that in the past few weeks after <br />receiving grant funds. He explained the review process that is necessary from MnDOT in order to <br />use those funds. He stated that if the Committee accepts the framework, staff would bring this <br />forward to the Council on October 26th and request development of plans for the road and utilities. <br />He stated that they would propose to work on those two elements separately in order to complete <br />the utilities while awaiting MnDOT approval for the road plans. He estimated that the road project <br />could be bid in July with contract award and the work to be completed by September 2022. <br />Councilmember Woestehoff asked if that timeline would align with the schedule of the developer. <br />Mr. Bakritges replied that they will be constructing homes. He noted that there is an existing farm <br />road that runs through the County property and can be utilized for construction. He stated that <br />schedule should align with them. <br />Chairperson Riley asked for clarification on the numbers proposed with the cost share and the <br />agreement for cost share between the Pearsons and Capstone. <br />Economic Development Manager Sullivan stated that the Pearsons and Capstone already have an <br />agreement on how they will share the cost, based on the linear footage. He stated that Capstone <br />does not want to contribute more than their linear footage and they are not willing to change their <br />agreement. <br />Chairperson Riley understood there is a separate agreement between Capstone and the Pearsons <br />but noted another option which would avoid using the PIR fund. <br />Economic Development Manager Sullivan stated that this scenario utilizes voluntary assessments. <br />He stated that under the scenario that Chairperson Riley presented, Capstone would pay a larger <br />assessment, which they have stated they are not willing to do. He stated that the scenario <br />mentioned by Chairperson Riley would in essence reopen negotiations. <br />Mr. Dobbs stated that the Pearson agreement is in writing with Capstone and goes back to before <br />a time when a proposal was presented to the City. He stated that it is not something that would <br />easily be renegotiated as it goes back to the time the purchase of the property was first discussed. <br />Mr. Bakritges stated that the cost share that was previously agreed upon is still maintained through <br />this revised agreement, although he understood that the funds the City will be using for its portion <br />are now different. He stated that the City was unable to receive grant funds for the tree purchase <br />and this would still allow for the project and road construction to move forward. <br />Economic Development Manager Sullivan commented that the point of Chairperson Riley is valid <br />in that if everyone could agree, they could use HRA funds and not use the PIR fund but from a <br />negotiation standpoint they could not reach that point. <br />Councilmember Musgrove commented that she is glad to see the County property price reduced. <br />She stated that the City has asked for the tree area to be preserved and because staff has looked for <br />other options, that did not work out, she would be comfortable moving forward in the method <br />Public Works Committee / October 19, 2021 <br />Page 4 of 18 <br />