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 /> 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 /> Councilmember Musgrove commented that she does not fully understand the implications of <br /> underwriting. <br /> Chairperson Riley provided additional details on the underwriting process and rate of return on the <br /> investment related to the City contribution. <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 /> 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 /> 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 /> Motion by Councilmember Musgrove, seconded by Councilmember Woestehoff, to recommend <br /> City Council approve the alternate cost share framework without the underwriting. <br /> Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Riley, Councilmembers Musgrove and Woestehoff. <br /> Voting No: None. <br /> 5.03: Consider Water Treatment Plant Site Selection Recommendation <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 1 January 19,2021 <br /> Page 7 of 14 <br />