PRECA 01-07-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a Joint Planning Agreement with the City. Completion of construction would be within two (2) years. Both construction and completion obviously depend on market and financial conditions. Either developer would require some public assistance in order to implement their proposed development projects. The specific level and type of public assistnace that would be needed is not known at this time.. Further refinement of the development proposals. and cost estimates are needed. to establish the specific public assistance needs, whoever it is anticipated that both developers would need public assistaace in acquiring land, clearing land and generally preparing it for development, and possibly financial assistance in the form of industrial revenue bands. It is furthermore assumed that the City could be responsible for some public utilities, public parking, roads and acces, and public amenity spaces. The basic characteristics of the Commercial Guarantee Fund and Kraus-Anderson prposals are summarized in Table II. Master Developer Proposal Evaluation A number of criteria of evaluating downtown development proposals have been selected. The criteria includes: 1) An evaluation of community benefits, 2) An evaluation of the consistency of the development proposal with downtown development goals, and 3) An evaluation of project feasibility. As both proposals are ~n the early stages, neither have detailed cost estimates, public assistance cost estimates, or project value projections. While both developers project between $10 and over $20 million dollars of project investment, neither organization is prepared to committment to a specific number at this time. Therefore, it is very difficult to evaluate the economic .community benefits of either proposal. Both projects appear to be of the same general-magnitude. A likely significant difference between the two (2) proposals would be Commercial Guarantee Fund's proposal to move Veterans Park from its current location to Harstad's Property in the northeast corner of the downtow n development district. Movement of this facility would be an added expense as well as a recreational facility access problem which the Kraus-Anderson proposal does not require, though this proposal likewise impacts the park by infringing on the park boundaries. The Commercial Guarnatee proposal impacts the single family residential to the west of 3rd Avenue, now outside the Development District boundary, immediately where the Kraus-Anderson proposal would seem to condition removal of these properties as office/ commercial growth is extended from the more immediate downtown care. Both projects are generally consistent with the downtown development plans and goals. -4-