Escanaba council approves $150,000 counteroffer for six city lots; discusses 5.17-acre condo proposal

ESCANABA, Mich. — The Escanaba City Council on Aug. 21 approved a counteroffer of $150,000 for a package of six city-owned lots on South 30 Second Street and received a presentation — with no vote — on the proposed sale of a 5.17-acre triangular parcel north of Third Avenue South for a condominium project.

The approved counteroffer, moved and voted on during the regular meeting, will be presented to the prospective buyer. Council voting recorded in the meeting transcript shows the counter passed with four votes in favor and one against.

The council action on the six lots follows months of interest from builders and a city analysis estimating that six single-family homes on the parcels would generate roughly $1.1 million in combined sale proceeds, taxes and utility revenue for the city over 20 years if built and occupied, compared with a lower projected return if the city waited longer for a higher sale price.

Resident Jim Soderberg, who lives on South 30 Second Street, told the council he and his neighbors are "not opposed to either, items 1 or 2 on the agenda," but urged the council to consider traffic impacts if the lots and the larger parcel are developed. Soderberg told the council the street currently has 18 houses and eight undeveloped lots and estimated development would add "approximately 44 in traffic" to the block.

Jamie Lefebvre, administrator of Bishop Noah Home, said the long-standing eldercare facility is interested in the parcel west of the facility and asked the council to “not make a hasty decision based off the presence of an offer, but instead take the time and make an informed and socially responsible action in the matter.”

City Manager Jim McNeil explained the city’s valuation and site constraints for the larger parcel. "The appraisal was actually for, what we had believed to be 4.1 acres," he said, and a later survey showed the parcel to be over five acres so the price was adjusted proportionally. McNeil also told the council his office estimated “close to a $130,000 just to get sewer run to the property line and then a street repaired," and said those utilities would be the developer’s responsibility under the current proposal.

Developers identified as Old State Development presented concepts for the 5.17-acre site. Judy Owens, a partner in Old State Development, said the firm planned single-story condominiums in three sizes — about 1,300, 1,500 and 1,900 square feet — with what she described as "very residential, very appealing" design and local subcontractor use. Owens said the developer had built other projects in the region and had budgeted for utilities and site work.

Dave Harris, part of the development team and identified with Statewide Real Estate, said the condominium project could produce new tax and utility revenue for the city and argued there is local demand for single-level condos. "We'd be dealing with probably about $250,000 in annual revenue from taxes and from utility costs," Harris told the council.

Council members and staff repeatedly returned to traffic and access. Several residents and councilors urged either a traffic study or consideration of extending nearby streets to provide alternate ingress and egress. Jim Soderberg and others suggested extending First Avenue North about a block and a half to improve access without requiring a bridge across Willow Creek; the city manager said any extension of Third Avenue South or First Avenue would face topographic and cost issues and that a bridge would be expensive if one were required.

City staff also noted the 5.17-acre parcel has a narrow triangular portion that limits buildable area even though the total acreage appears large. The city reiterated that the developer had offered to bear the cost of extending utilities to serve the site.

On the six lots on South 30 Second Street, council discussion included comparisons to recent lot sales in the neighborhood and the advantages of selling multiple lots to a single builder to achieve scale. After discussion, the council approved the $150,000 counteroffer to the developer rather than accepting the earlier $120,000 figure on the table.

There was no formal vote or final agreement recorded on the larger 5.17-acre parcel at the Aug. 21 meeting; council action on that item remained discussion-only. Councilors asked staff to ensure required studies and analyses are available as the sale and any subsequent zoning or site-plan decisions move forward.

Public commenters also raised procedural questions about the city charter, deed restrictions and the need, in some cases, to submit park land sales to the electorate under the charter. Joe Kaplan, a resident and former city participant in recreation planning, urged the council to follow the charter’s requirements for park property sales, noting that some parcels had been deeded for recreation use decades earlier and that a city charter or deed can affect whether voter approval is required.

Next steps include presenting the developer with the approved counteroffer for the six lots and continuing review of the proposed condominium project; the council did not schedule a final vote on the 5.17-acre parcel during the Aug. 21 meeting.