Laserfiche WebLink
120 <br /> <br />cost of the roads and infrastructure had been. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ray stated that this information was not available <br />at this time. Mr. Ray explained that due to the need for <br />additional infill~ the cost for the roads had been $430,000 <br />and this was for this purpose that $183,000 had been <br />requested of the City. Mr. Ray stated that any cash surplus <br />from the land sale would be put towards a parking structure <br />by the CIDA~ <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck questioned whether the anticipated revenues or <br />expenses varied from.original projections and Mr. Ray replied <br />that neither were expected to be significantly higher, with <br />the exception of the additional accumulated interest which <br />has been incurred due to the time the property has been held <br />by the CIDA. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck asked what were the anticipated sales <br />projections for the property and Mr. Ray replied that the <br />projections varied depending upon the uses of the property, <br />but the original sales project had been $2.5 million. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ray stated that the highest possible surplus figure <br />anticipated for the~property was $900,000. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated that she assumed there was general <br />agreement with the concept plan for the property as described <br />by Mr. Ray as no objections were raised by Council. <br />Regarding the strategy for developing the property, Ms. <br />Waters questioned whether a combination of formal proposals <br />and negotiation could occur. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gilliam replied that a combination of the options <br />could be used and noted that this approach had been used for <br />Carlton Business Park. Mr. Gilliam noted that informal <br />negotiation and proposals can often provide a wider variety <br />and more imaginative uses. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that he felt it would be preferable to <br />not have formal requests for proposals. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Towe regarding the <br />possibility of abandonment of the railroad tracks, Mr. <br />Hendrix explained that an answer on the abandonment issue <br />might be available in six months but may take as long as two <br />years. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck questioned whether developers other than Mr. <br />Tom Hickman of Aliant, Inc. had been aware of the <br />availability of the four residential lots on the south side <br />of the tracks. Mr. Buck also stated that he felt the sale <br />price of $4,000 per lot appeared low, <br /> <br /> Mr. Ray replied that the sites were being offered at a <br />lower than market price in order to encourage moderately <br />prices homes on the sites. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters questioned whether a decision on the four <br />lots should be delayed for 45 to 60 days in order to give <br />other developers an opportunity to make a proposal. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that he would be agreeable to approving <br />the development of the four lots as proposed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters recommended that the matter be put on the <br />next Council agenda for public comment. Ms. Water added that <br />she would like further information about what sort of <br />residential development could be put on these lots. <br /> <br /> Mr. David Sutton, a member of the CIDA stated that he <br />was concerned that holding a proposal for development of the <br />property up for competition at the last minute might have a <br />chilling effect on the private sector. <br /> <br /> <br />