Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ConAgra-area development paused after engineers find need for deep footings; city declines to fund shortfall
Summary
City staff told Huron City Council that geotechnical work on the ConAgra/Bridal development found footing requirements tied into bedrock that create about a $3 million cost gap; the city declined a developer request to fill that gap and said options remain under discussion.
Get email alerts on the Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff told Huron City Council on Sept. 23 that the ConAgra/Bridal residential project is on hold after a recent engineering review found soil conditions require substantially deeper footings.
Interim City Manager Mister Hamilton said builders now estimate a minimum 50-foot footing tied into bedrock for each unit, a change staff described as an unanticipated cost that creates about a $3 million shortfall for the project — roughly $18,000 per unit by the numbers reported at the meeting. City staff said the developer requested city assistance to cover the unexpected cost, and the city declined to provide additional funding, noting the city’s existing commitments (including a previously approved seawall expense) limit its ability to absorb further project subsidies.
Hamilton told council staff have discussed alternatives, including asking the developer to adjust offering prices or seeking cost-sharing with other builders or stakeholders. He characterized the issue as a substantial but not fatal barrier and said the parties continue to explore options. No formal financial commitment from the city was made at the meeting.
Council members asked about timeline implications and contract deadlines; staff said the developer’s due-diligence window extends to roughly the second week of November with a rolling 60-day extension clause available but cautioned that extension is not indefinite.
The council asked staff to continue negotiations and report back; no vote was taken on providing city funding for the developer’s footing costs at this meeting.

