Laserfiche WebLink
Member Johnson recognized that there would be a water feature in The COR and asked if there is <br />a plan to have more wetlands or water features within that area. <br />Economic Development Manager Sullivan replied that the areas marked in red are anticipated to <br />be filled to create more buildable area within The COR. He stated that once they have the costs <br />known, they would determine if that is a cost the City would want to bear. He stated that the City <br />could then choose whether that cost is rolled into the land price or split between the City and future <br />development. He stated that staff believes that there will be an economy of scale in using the dirt <br />from the excavation of the waterfront area to fill the desired areas. <br />Member Riley commented that this would seem to be follow up to the decision the EDA made in <br />February. He stated that the work has not been able to be done in-house and therefore this action <br />would contract that work out. <br />Economic Development Manager Sullivan confirmed that to be true and noted that the intention <br />was to keep the EDA informed in the process. He recognized that there may be more cost than <br />originally anticipated due to wetland replacement and that will be flushed out through this study. <br />Member Riley stated that his other question was whether this would be the right time to complete <br />this work but acknowledged that the TIF funds are available now and the work would need to be <br />done prior to November of 2023 if that funding is going to be used. <br />Motion by Member Stewart, seconded by Member MacLennan, to recommend to City Council to <br />authorize the Wetland and COR Infrastructure proposals utilizing TIF District (2, 14) funds. <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Olson, Members Stewart, MacLennan, Howell, <br />Johnson, and Riley. Voting No: None. Absent: Member Wiyninger. <br />4.02: Consider Cancellation of Purchase Agreement for Parcel 50; Case of Java <br />Companies, LLC <br />Economic Development Manager Sullivan presented the staff report. <br />Member Howell asked if the City would need to have to setup a purchase agreement in the same <br />way if this developer were to come back, or whether the notice to proceed language could be <br />removed so that if the developer did not move forward again the City would not lose out on the <br />earnest money after holding land for a significant amount of time. <br />Economic Development Manager Sullivan replied that every purchase agreement can be <br />negotiated with terms the EDA and Council agree to. He stated that those agreements are setup in <br />that way to allow the due diligence, tenant and site plan approval work. He commented that in <br />this case the developer is aware of who the tenants would be and therefore could be an ask if they <br />were to come back for a future purchase agreement. He noted that the one thing that would be <br />problematic is that typically the development review process occurs during that six months as well. <br />He noted that the money is therefore allowed to be refundable during that time in the case that <br />perhaps the City does not approve the development plans. He noted that time period could be <br />Economic Development Authority/ October 13, 2022 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />