2012-03-20_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, February 21, 2012 Page 11 1 Mr. Trudgeon advised that the HRA, if approving this motion, would be expending funds; and 2 that money was budgeted for attorney fees, and the appraisal costs could be funded from 3 reserves. 4 5 At the request of Member Masche, Mr. Trudgeon confirmed that an appraisal of the fire station 6 parcel had already been completed and was not part of this requested action. 7 8 At the request of Member Pust, Ms. Kelsey clarified that while the parcel currently held a 9 single-family home, it was zoned high density residential (HDR), and an appraisal would be 10 based on the parcel’s current zoning, not current use; most likely resulting in a higher 11 appraisal; and providing rationale for the listing price for the parcel. Mr. Trudgeon noted that, 12 as a public agency, the commercial appraisal would serve as a reality check for the HRA. 13 14 Member Battisto opined that the action should be to seek realtor evaluations first; then make 15 an offer contingent upon an appraisal. Member Battisto opined that this would protect the 16 HRA from the price indicated by the appraisal and not lock the HRA into a potentially higher 17 number. Member Battisto spoke in support of having the HRA attorney involved to negotiate 18 based on the current market and potential use, ensuring contingencies upon receipt of an 19 appraisal. No matter the future use, Member Battisto opined that the price looked very high to 20 her; and appeared to be very beneficial for the property’s heirs. 21 22 Mr. Trudgeon sought direction from the HRA Board. 23 24 Member Battisto opined that the price of the 2325 Dale Street parcel was too steep to be of 25 much interest if the HRA delayed action. 26 27 Chair Maschka spoke in support of the HRA making a reasonable offer to determine interest of 28 the estate’s heirs; and based on results of the appraisal. 29 30 Ms. Kelsey clarified staff’s requested action to be directed to negotiate a purchase of the 31 property contingent upon financing, HRA Board approval and appraisal of the parcel. 32 33 Member Masche opined that this requested action was no consistent with the motion currently 34 on the table. 35 36 Ms. Kelsey clarified that staff would still be returning to the HRA Board with the Purchase 37 Agreement for further consideration at a future date. 38 39 Member Pust expressed confusion with the requested action of staff and the motion currently 40 under discussion. 41 42 Member Battisto opined that the first contingency should be the appraisal; and once that 43 contingency had been removed, the next contingency should be considered; all separate and 44 distinct steps; with the HRA’s offer as low as possible to facilitate development of the 45 assembled parcels. 46 47 Member Pust suggested that a special HRA meeting could be scheduled if necessary. 48 49 Ms. Kelsey clarified that, due to the potential of spending public dollars, staff had pursued no 50 contact with the seller to-date, pending HRA Board direction. 51 52 Discussion ensued regarding preferred language of the motion itself. That discussion included 53 the need for additional data that could be provided by a market evaluation or analysis from two 54 (2) commercial and two (2) residential realtors prior to any negotiations taking place; intent of 55 the HRA if they should acquire the parcel(s); pro-active marketing of the parcel(s) by the HRA