The discussion over Gaiter Lake will continue as the Waseca City Council made another contested 4-3 vote for the authorization of development of real property parcel ID 170170850, commonly referred to as the Gaiter lake Residential Development Property.
The council hosted a work session meeting May 21 about the topic before voting on it at its regular meeting the same night. The work session and the regular meeting contained discussion about the development from the council, city staff, and the public.
Resolution 24-32
In 2016, the city of Waseca purchased property that included a parcel of 40 acres identified as the “North Parcel” for public purposes, development, and to comply with the establishment of a conservation easement mandated through the Pondview Settlement Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources(DNR). The purchase cost the city $650,000.
In 2023, the city council passed resolution 23-23, which approved the city’s development of the North Parcel as a residential development and authorized City Manager Carl Sonnenberg to hire professional services to prepare a proposed development plan for the property. The resolution also authorized Sonnenberg to prepare a request for proposals from interested private developers for the development.
The property did not garner any significant interest from buyers or private developers, so the council decided it was in the public interest for the city to pursue developing the property themselves.
Joe Palin from Stantec, the city’s engineering consultant, was at both the work session meeting and the regular council meeting on May 21 to present what the city has done with the planning for the development and to answer any questions from the council.
City staff brought Resolution 24-32 to the council for them to vote on it. The resolution would authorize Sonnenberg to begin the process for plating the property in conformance with the proposed concept Stantec made. It would also authorize the city to seek engineering services for the development.
Development
The Gaiter Lake residential development will consist of 33 single family lots and 17 twin home lots. There will be a total of 50 lots with 67 units. The development will also have a park in the middle of it.
The stormwater will continue to discharge to Gaiter lake with the development. The extent of the stormwater infrastructure is based on the DNR requirements and city ordinance.
“This is a pretty sensitive site and we did take a look at that,” Palen said at the work session meeting. “Obviously we’ll take a little bit more closer look if the city council chooses to move the project forward through the detailed design process.”
The total estimated cost of the project is $4.3 million. The estimate does not include streetlights and private utility installation, sidewalk construction, park amenities, or city staff time working on the project.
The city will appropriate money from city funds, with additional funding sources to be recommended by Sonnenberg and voted on by the council for the installation of public infrastructure improvements.
Reasons to not go forward
Three members of the city council are not in favor of the development due to the city being the developers of it, the financial burden of it, and the DNR restrictions of the property.
“That doesn’t sound like a good deal to me,” council member John Mansfield said about the city selling the lots after the development. “I think if it were viable, we’d have people stepping up saying ‘yeah I want to build this’ or ‘I want to do that’ but we’re not seeing it and I don’t think we’re going to because the lots are going to be too expensive.”
Mansfield further explained that he isn’t comfortable with the city gambling on whether or not the city is going to sell all the lots on the development. He also brought up how he thinks builders and contractors aren’t interested in the project because it is risky to build on the property.
Mansfield and council member James Ebertowski agreed that it is not the government’s job to be the developers of a project like this.
“We’re playing the role of what private industry should be doing,” said Ebertowski.
Mansfield and council member Jeremy Conrath brought up the financial part of the project, noting the city won’t make its money back for a while.
“The reason people aren’t for it is because it’s going to take 40-50 years to get that money back,” Conrath said.
“If you guys want to spend the taxpayers into higher taxes, more debt on speculative development, then you can make that decision to do so, I’m not willing to do that,” Mansfield said to his fellow council members.
Reasons to go forward
Council member Mark Christiansen disagreed with Mansfield and Conrath when it came to the financial side of the project. Christiansen said the city should look at the project like it is a business.
“Treat it as a business,” Christiansen said. “If you look at it from the outside a little bit, look at the value of what we’re doing, this is the growth of Waseca.”
Mayor Randy Zimmerman agreed with Christiansen and stated that he sees it as an investment, and you don’t get a return on investment until after you make it.
Council member Stacey Schroeder brought up that Waseca is in need of housing. She stated that the number one takeaway from the council’s meeting with the city’s Economic Development Authority(EDA) a couple months ago was the city needs to have more housing if it wants to attract more businesses from coming into town.
‘If we take that first step and invest in our community … other people will come,” Christiansen said about the growth of Waseca.
Christiansen brought up senior housing and how the project might address it, as it is a problem for the city. He thinks that the project would have seniors move into the townhomes and that would open up housing for families moving into Waseca.
Public comment
Members of the community addressed their concerns about the project during the public comment period at the council meeting. Gary Dobberstein brought up the 2021 housing study and how the city is far below what the study stated the city should be at by now.
Dobberstein stated that according to the study, the city should have 700 more housing units by 2030. In the nine years between 2021 and 2030, Dobberstein said the city should be building an average of 77.8 units a year.
“We’re three years into it, and we don’t even have one year’s worth of housing done,” Dobberstein said. “Now that means we would have to build or we should have already been building 233 units since then. We haven’t.”
Dobberstein then said that the Gaiter Lake development wouldn’t make up for the gap Waseca already has when it comes to housing.
Sonnenberg addressed the housing study in a memo leading up to the June 4 city council meeting. He stated that he is not aware of whether the 2021 housing study was reviewed with the council. He also brought up that the city is in contact with a senior housing developer, but things like this take time to work through and are not notified to the public right away.
Deb Dobberstein brought up during the public comment period how she thinks nobody is going to want to come and build a house facing a “slough.” She stated that the city is going to end up with a bunch of empty lots on the property.
Jackie Dickie questioned the council on why they decided to be the developer of the project and stated that having a background in real estate is important if you’re going to develop property.
Vote
Before the council voted on Resolution 24-32, Sonnenberg clarified that it would direct him to work with city staff and Stantec to bring back an engineering services proposal to construct water, sewer and storm storm utilities on the property.
“It doesn’t authorize the city manager to put a house on the ground,” Sonnenberg said. “There’s legal soundness in the resolution, so staff provided all of the items that are in the resolution to the attorney, and I said, ‘Make it right,’ so there’s no legal recourse against the council based on how the resolution is worded or isn’t worded properly.”
Christiansen made the motion to approve the resolution with Schroeder seconding it. The council approved it with a 4-3 vote, with Mansfield, Conrath and Ebertowski voting not to approve it.
The next step for the development process would most likely be the engineering services proposal voted on by the council according to Sonnenberg.
Most Popular
Comments / 0