pm_881012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Pagel 4 Wednesday, October 12, 1988 Rohdy questioned why the Concordia building had been I isted as necessary for renovation in the Tax Increment analysis. Waldron responded that this was reasonable because the renovation was necessary to make the building usable for the proposed new use. Waldron also pointed out that the 400,000 dollar expense is significant and justifiable according to the City's bond counsel. Rohdy stated that this appeared to be self-justifying. Kaufmann inquired if any economic analysis of the Concordia site rec center vs. other alternative sites have been done. Bierschied replied that a comparison of costs for a rec center on the ice arena site vs. the Concordia site had been completed which found that the costs of a rec center on the Concordia site would be approximately $1.3 million less than the costs for a building on the ice arena site. Maschka asked if the two facilities would be equal. responded that they would. Bierschied Dahlgren stated to the Commission that the current proposal would provide the City with a rec center plus 10 acres of land and that the site by the ice arena would still be available for future needs of the city. Maschka questions what the total cost of center would be including additions Bierschied summarized the facility costs the Tax Increment costs. the Concordia site rec and purchase costs. and Waldron summarized stokes inquired about the purchase costs of Capital View School by Concordia. Bierschied stated that he couldn't comment on the Capital View purchase. Goedeke commented that he was concerned that a purchase now would delay the total facility and result in the City not having an adequate recreation facility. Bierschied informed the commission that the Concordia site would meet recreational needs now and provide immediate space whereas the ice arena site would not be available for some time. Mike Rose, 818 Sextant Avenue, asked what the expected rate of return of the project was and how much tax payers will be underwri ting . Waldron answered that a fair rate of return for the developer was 11-12% and that under this proposal 2/3 of the costs for the rec center was being paid for by the new taxes from the Brutger proposal and 1/3 of the costs by the tax payers of the City vs. the ice arena alternative which would be paid for 100% by tax payers.