Agenda - Public Works Committee - 10/19/2021

Home

buffering between the Riverstone development and adjacent Bowers Drive neighborhood. He stated that the seven acres plus one acre equate to over 10 percent of the site which is above the required park dedication with only land contributions. He referenced the original framework for Riverdale Drive that used one third contributions that everyone agreed to, acknowledging that there was a gap. He stated that they do not agree to spend their funds on a public improvement on County property. He stated that the mechanism of the dollar amounts, and percentages do not change by much, but they do not want to contribute to the County property. He commented that things were added to the project which add cost and they do not want to contribute to. He stated that staff was able to develop the new framework which they agree to. He stated that they cost- shared on the construction of Puma with the City in Riverdale North and is an example of how this can work. He stated that they agreed to the recommendation of staff to provide the seven acres of wooded area, one acre of park land and a cash park dedication of$350,000 for Riverstone South as long as the City purchases the seven acres of wooded land for $350,000. He stated that they have not discussed about opening books throughout this process and would not agree to that. He stated that they are not asking for TIF or anything above what is typically done for public improvement projects. He commented that they realize that the City and County are going through the appraisal process for the County parcel and that potential purchase would provide the City with benefit down the road when development of that site occurs. He stated that if Capstone had to put more dollars into this improvement, they would not move the project forward. He stated that the goal would be for the City to have its third-party financing in order to move forward in spring of 2022 when Capstone is ready to move forward on Riverstone South. He stated that they want to continue working with and collaborating with staff and agree to the framework but do not agree with the underwriting component. John Dobbs, representing the Pearson family, commented that they have had direct conversations with staff which he appreciates. He commented that there are two things different in this framework, than the original which split it into thirds. He stated that the land value is different and not accounted for. He stated that if grant funds are allocated for land purchase that provides the City with land that would be improved as it would have both right-of-way and road access and could be sold for development, therefore he struggles with the premise that the entire cost for the land is shown on the sheet, but the future value is not accredited to offset that. He stated that the other difference from the original framework is the Bowers Drive extension,cul-de-sac,and access point. He commented that the Pearson family is donating the right-of-way for Riverdale Drive and would also be asked to provide the right-of-way and cul-de-sac area for Bowers Drive, which is not their responsibility to donate. He stated that the associated details and costs were not shown in the original framework and it is the opinion that the Bowers Drive right-of-way and cul-de-sac for Bowers Drive is the responsibility of Bowers Drive residents and not the Pearson family. He stated that the original framework agreed to each of the three parties contributing one third of the cost, with an acknowledgement that there was a gap on the County contribution. He stated that the new framework does not show the value of the land that the City would purchase with grant funds and also shows the Bowers Drive requirements as a credit on the City portion. He stated that the Pearson's agreed to the one third split and do not agree to the Bowers Drive components. Steve Bona, Capstone Homes, commented that the original framework included the one third split of costs between the parties and Capstone still agrees to that. He stated that the framework then allowed the negotiation of the park dedication and tree preservation, which was then approved. Public Works Committee 1 January 19,2021 Page 4 of 14