Draft Minutes November 19, 2012, Work Session

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—NOVEMBER 19, 2012 6 Councilmember Holden asked if the reference to "co-terminus" in this section was too restrictive. Mayor Grant suggested the co-terminus be removed and that it be replaced with a two-year term. Councilmember Tamble asked what would be covered by"per diem". Mayor Grant stated this would cover mileage and meals and after the JPA was put into effect, the County would cover these expenses. Councilmember Holmes requested clarification on the differences between the JPA and JDA. Mr. Norton discussed this further with the Council. The revenues surrounding these agreements were also discussed. Community Development Director Hutmacher stated land use fees would be collected by the JDA. The City would collect building fees. She noted the City would also be completing all building inspections and collecting fees accordingly. Councilmember Holden asked if the financing of improvements should be further detailed. She questioned how often the City would receive payments from the County. Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson explained this would be determined by the JDA Board. Further discussion ensured regarding the finances for this project. Mayor Grant asked how excess funds in the JDA would be handled after the JDA was absolved. He wanted to be assured that all funds were put back into the TCAAP development. Councilmember Holden recommended any excess funds come back to the City. Mr. Norton indicated it would be difficult to forecast if there would be an excess and if there was, how to fairly divide the funds between all parties involved. Councilmember Holden questioned who would be responsible for land titles. Mr. Norton explained the JDA could impose this expense on the developer. He noted this was not an expense that would be assumed by the City. Councilmember Tamble stated the JDA could not levy funds for the development, but the entities involved could. Mr. Norton commented this was the case; the JDA could only expend what was approved in the budget. The parties involved could bond for additional monies to assist with potential future developments.