Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />RHRA Nleeting <br />NTinutes — iVlonday, August 29, 2016 <br />Page 33 <br />neighborhood to consider impacts from density, traffic and certain uses; <br />opining that was a prudent step for the city to take at this tiine. <br />Member Etten stated he was very conflicted on this issue. When Ms. <br />Schroeder spoke, Member Etten noted he was reminded of her comments as <br />Chair of the Finance Commission and their recominendations that the city not <br />take on spending any new money for new assets, given the significant list of <br />short- and long-term purchases of late, renovations made and staffing of those <br />new assets. <br />Member Etten stated he was very cognizant of that advice coming from one of <br />the city's advisory commissions when it came to decision-making like this, <br />even though they were referencing mostly park and recreation as well as other <br />city assets. Metnber Etten noted he was given further pause when hearing <br />Ramsey County's lack of interest in the property; and in his opinion that the <br />School District would probably not be interested either. Member Etten stated <br />his biggest concern had been voiced by President Roe in defining the city's <br />purpose in acquiring the building and/or property; and the process identified by <br />Member Willinus to identify t�a new piirpose for the land. Member Etten <br />recognized several eYcellent ideas for that property's future; but questioned if <br />that was the only location they could happen, and even though many good uses <br />were brought forward, he wasn't sure if that balanced moving against the <br />advice of the City Council's own Finance Commission. <br />President Roe, as seconder of the motion, stated that should indicate his level <br />of support for the motion. President Roe noted there was not question that <br />people had considered possible uses for that site, and while not �vishin� to be <br />disrespectfiil of that, he didn't think it was prudent to make a decision on <br />acquii-ing the property without having an inkling for its future use. President <br />Roe noted there would be challenges in re-using a 60,000 square foot facility, <br />with Ramsey County considering that it had no future use for institutional uses. <br />Therefore, President Roe suggested if it was redeveloped as a different use, <br />and based on earlier discussions tonight on growing and diversifying the city's <br />tax base with this building not currently on the tax rolls, he recognized that it <br />cost the city no money to not acquire and/or develop it, but to allow <br />redevelopment of the site by the private market and spread that tax base out <br />among the city and reducing costs for other residents and businesses in the <br />community who receive city services it provided. <br />President Roe noted the city would not only be acquiring a large building, but a <br />deteriorated parking lot, roofs and mechanicals — whether needing maintenance <br />or replacement now or later — creating potential prograinming for the city's <br />CIP and rehabilitation needs. President Roe noted that was always a <br />consideration when the city was asked to make decisions. <br />