Draft Minutes - 10-29-12 Special Work Session (Immed following Reg CC)

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—OCTOBER 29, 2012 2 going. The message that he took away from those meetings is that the City needs to minimize its risks. Working with a private developer, such as Ryan Companies, is different than working with the County. He stated that in general, the feedback provided during his meetings with the Councilmembers was positive. City Administrator Klaers stated that the conversations with individual Councilmembers further identified two additional concerns. First, is the issue of off-site transportation and the second is regarding the need for a third access onto the property. He indicated that he does not have a good answer for those concerns, but noted that the issues are the County's responsibility. City Administrator Klaers noted that there are questions regarding the initial establishment of the Joint Development Authority(JDA) and how this new board should function and operate. It is known that it would be comprised of two members of the County Board, two members of the City Council, and one member appointed by the City Council. City Administrator Klaers stated that the two key sections of the JPA are the ones related to the establishment of the JDA and the creation of a Master Plan. There are unknowns with the JPA such as how the JDA will operate and function, questions on how the Master Plan is implemented (phased in), and the cost of the Master Plan. He noted that the cost of the AUAR is likely going to be between $100,000 - $200,000. There is also the trunk utility financial issue that will ultimately be passed on to the developers as well as the financial responsibility of operating the JDA itself. At this time, it is unclear how expensive it will be to create the JDA and there will be ongoing expenses. City Administrator Klaers stated that the AUAR is a City requirement. Staff has met with Kimley Horn and WSB and was given estimates as to what AUAR's have cost in other cities. He was also given a timeframe estimate. He met with the County and discussed some of the financial issues. The County has indicated that they will make sure the City is reimbursed for some of its planning expenses. He said that ways in which reimbursement may happen is with building permit surcharges, increased SAC/WAC fees, or application development fees. There are other ways to recapture the money, and the County will support the City in getting its money back. City Administrator Klaers stated that staff has met with Ehlers to discuss this project and Ehlers has done bond runs, so the City knows those costs. With this project, the County is the landowner and as such, they are required to pay for the infrastructure, and they would like the City to bond for it. He indicated that the City should not bond unless the County can guarantee payment. Councilmember Holmes questioned why the County is not going to bond for the infrastructure costs. City Administrator Klaers stated that the County does not see themselves as a developer; only as temporary landowners, and the County views the City as being responsible for utilities. Councilmember Holmes stated that the County wants the City to bond and to be responsible for the construction and initial expense of sewer and water. She reminded staff that during previous discussions, the consensus of the Council is that they would not put the burden of TCAAP-related expenses on the residents.