Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Serena Park topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer proposes to build Serena Park infrastructure; city would credit assessments
Summary
City staff briefed the council on a developer‑led option for Serena Park in which a private development group would construct water, sewer and streets and receive special‑assessment credits; staff estimated the city’s share for remaining lots at $1.5–$2 million and said a development agreement and new special‑assessment resolution would be required.
City Manager Loing told the council the city has revisited Serena Park, a subdivision first planned for infrastructure installation in 2000–2001, after receiving a developer proposal last year. The proposal would have the developer—identified in the transcript as Serena Park LLC, Allen Jeffrey Sites Revocable Trust and Inge Park Properties Inc.—construct the public utilities and receive a credit against special assessments for the lots they own.
Loing gave a cost update: the current estimated construction cost with a 10% contingency is about $10,600,000, which equates to roughly $44,915 per lot for construction costs alone. The staff estimate for the city’s share for the unowned lots (reported in the transcript as 34 lots) was between $1.5 million and $2.0 million; assessments would be recovered over up to a 20‑year period. Loing said the city would still be responsible for engineering, wetland mitigation credits and some soft costs, and that the developer would be required to provide commercial general liability insurance and solicit third‑party bids for construction.
Developer representative Ron Inge told the council the development group owns the majority of lots and supports moving forward. “My name is Ron Inge representing Serena Park LLC and Inge Properties and mister Sites as well,” he said, and described the area as blighted and in need of redevelopment. Councilmembers raised procedural and timing questions about extensions, bonding and the need for a formal development agreement; staff said they would return with a draft agreement and a preliminary special‑assessment resolution for council consideration.
Why it matters: the proposed approach could let most infrastructure be built without the city issuing bonds, reduce up‑front borrowing costs, and shift significant construction responsibility to the private sector while preserving assessment‑based repayment over time. Council discussion indicated interest but also a desire for precise terms, appraisals for right‑of‑way purchases and commitments on completion and extensions before formal approval.
