2017-01-09_EDA_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

9c. Attachment A Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 28, 2016 Page 22 and dependent on their decertification and how that timing works based on re- maining funds if any and from a philosophical consideration. Mr. Aarsvold advised that additional edits would be incorporated based on to- night’s discussion and thanked the city for the feedback. Mr. Aarsvold reviewed next steps as follows: Finalize framework with feedback and direction from staff and cc Revise and improve implementation form Provide final version of both documents for consideration and use for future acquisition Councilmember Willmus thanked Mr. Aarsvold for tonight’s update; and refer- enced Attachment A, Section 3, asking if there was a threshold in terms of raw value that might be applied to a parcel. Councilmember Willmus stated his strong advocacy for appraisals and expressed his interest in continuing that to keep the th city in a solid position and protective of its interests. Based on the November 7 discussion, Councilmember Willmus asked if Mr. Aarsvold had any thoughts re- lated to county assessed values, broker opinions, comparable sales or other valua- tion tools. While having heard the council’s strong preference for appraisals, Mr. Aarsvold advised that the only reason he didn’t include it as a hard and fast requirement was recognizing that all projects will be different. Based on those previous dis- cussions, if the cost of an appraisal exceeds the cost of or represents a huge per- centage of the entire development, Mr. Aarsvold questioned if there was a sure or hard threshold for an appraisal. Instead, Mr. Aarsvold suggested instead that it may be driven more by circumstances and/or negotiations; or that the price may just be the price due to the owner’s offer of sale, also questioning if an appraisal to confirm that hard selling price is necessary. Mr. Aarsvold suggested a circum- stantial test for staff to use, since they knew well the council’s preference for ap- praisals. Ms. Collins agreed, noting it was traditional and past practice to pursue an ap- praisal, and she saw no change in that practice. Councilmember Willmus noted some day a different council would be seated; with Ms. Collins agreeing if the council wanted to require an appraisal for any po- tential acquisition; or identify to what degree that cost variable becomes an issue. Mayor Roe suggested language on Item 2 could include, “other things may be used, subject to City Council approval,” based on what the City Council wants. Then, Mayor Roe noted that any future City Council could state their preference, whether appraisal or not, but other things would be subject to their approval. Councilmember McGehee agreed with that; but stated she didn’t want to call that out, noting the city had spent considerable money on appraisals in the past on ac-