Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Riley replied it has been pointed out that there are a lot of other things to consider, <br />not just the up-front costs. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht commented that he thought it was a good idea and would open up potential <br />for the future by making more land that could be sold and developed at some point. He stated if it <br />allows the business to stay if they desire. Long term he thought future connections could be made <br />to Armstrong Boulevard or other things that may come up. He stated he thought the negatives <br />would be outweighed by the potential for the future. <br /> <br />Economic Development Manager Sullivan stated one of two things happen with RALF properties <br />according to the agreements. If the land is acquired for highway purposes the City pays what the <br />outstanding loan amount is. In under 4.02 of the agreements the discharge due to changes in the <br />plans for the highway so if a highway is going to be constructed that would constitute a change for <br />the highway construction. In the event that happens unfortunately it says that the recipient shall <br />repay to the Council within 30 days the fair market value of the property, not the loan value. If <br />these are deemed not to be used for the highway project or not acquired as part of the highway <br />project, he thought the City’s exposure is going to be limited to what market value is. He stated <br />he anticipated that market value is probably less than what the City acquired these properties for. <br />He stated a lot of the properties have buildings on them so when they were acquired there was <br />property value and relocation value in moving the businesses. He stated there may be some <br />comfort that in the event these properties have to be sold it is market value versus loan value which <br />may be less exposure for the City. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff asked if the City doesn’t extend, but they acquire the lots because the <br />highway needs them, hypothetically, but then the City could sell them after that once the highway <br />is done. He asked if so, isn’t the value extremely low in terms of market value because there is no <br />resources to them. He asked if he understood correctly. <br /> <br />Economic Development Manager Sullivan confirmed this. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff asked if they extend there is still no water and sewer which is another <br />big bill to get those things to that space in order for someone to market them appropriately but the <br />City would still be the seller. He asked if at one point there was a scenario where the County <br />would acquire these, or has it always going to be the City’s responsibility after the project. <br /> <br />Economic Development Manager Sullivan replied if they were to bulb the cul-du-sac at the green <br />area on the map, the County would buy everything to the left of it. The County would also pay <br />off the loan values and initially when costing was done for this project, that is how it was costed. <br />He continued if the County doesn’t then the City retains the land and has to sell the lots. <br />Councilmember Woestehoff asked if it was correct that with the first scenario where the County <br />owns the lots the City has much less discretion on what goes on those properties if the County <br />decides to sell them. <br /> <br />Economic Development Manager Sullivan replied yes but the discretion would be pretty simple <br />because there wouldn’t be access. The lots couldn’t really be sold because there wouldn’t be a use <br />for them and there wouldn’t be access. <br />City Council Work Session /July 26, 2022 <br />Page 5 of 19 <br /> <br />