March 2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The following letter was sent by the Arden Hills City Council to the Ramsey County Board of Commis- sioners as a response to the Board's call for mediation. February 25, 2019 Ramsey County Board of Commissioners 220 Courthouse, 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Chair and Ramsey County Board Members, By letters dated February 8 (from Board Chair McDonough) and February 11 (from Assistant County Attorney Schmidt), Ramsey County has requested the City consent to mediation as “the only way to a development agreement.” It is clear from these letters that the County believes direct communication in a public forum by des- ignated representatives of the two public bodies cannot be productive (“the County Board decided that it was not in the best interests of the organization to negotiate in a special meeting” and “it is not in the County’s business or financial interests to negotiate the terms of a complex real estate transaction in a public forum”). These statements seem disingenuous given that the parties have made substantial prog- ress in drafting and discussing terms of the Master Development Agreement, Coopera- tive Agreement, and related subordinate agreements over the past year. Further, when it served the County’s purpose, the County had no problem with having the Joint Development Authority review and adopt a preliminary Master Development Agreement (on September 24). That preliminary document, which outlines the County’s proposed real estate transaction, as sole owner of the development property, with the Master Developer, pointedly does not include the City as a party to the land transactions. From the outset, and as clearly outlined in the Joint Powers Agreement, the City’s role in the development has been limited to providing the regulatory framework for the development, with the participa- tion and consent of the County (provided in 2016), and to assist in the construction of necessary infrastructure to serve the development without burdening existing Arden Hills residents either for the initial development or once the development is completed. The City does not believe the parties are at an impasse that warrants mediation, and if an impasse does exist, it is caused solely by the County’s choice to not substantively respond to the City’s most recent offer of compromise (presented following the City’s October 24 work session). That offer by the City included acceding to developer and County requests for relief from possible SAC fees, the City gener- ally accepting the County offer for internal financing of the water tower and related infrastructure costs, and the use of tax increment financing by the City to assist in meeting the mutual goals of the County, City and Developer. Instead of a substantive response, the County provided the November 6 letter from County Manager O’Connor indicat- ing that the County was walking away or taking a pause or break from the project, and reassigning County resources toward other projects, perhaps for a period of six months. Now, half-way into that break the County seeks to reverse course, declare an impasse, and proceed to private media- tion, or if the City rejects that proposal, to pursue other options. The City respectfully declines the request for mediation as premature, and suggests that the County again commit to fully participating in the Joint Development Au- thority meetings, and authorize its staff and consultants to resume meeting with City and Developer representatives to fashion a Master Development Agreement, Coopera- tive Agreement and related documents that all parties can publicly review and sign. The City of Arden Hills will continue to abide by the principles that have guided our efforts on this project from the begin- ning, which include a transparent and participatory process to adopt plans and land use regulations for the development, public financing and long-term service commitments. Those principles include avoiding or minimizing the short and long terms costs of the development to current residents, and the City remains committed to these goals. The City believes is has been reasonable. The current master plan contemplates 1460 units. That number is itself a compromise, and has previously been approved by the County. Though the project is contemplated to provide a full mixture of uses, including corporate office, other commercial, and retail, the housing density goal of approxi- mately 9.0 units per acre in areas zoned residential is approximately three times that of the existing City density. That is consistent with past, current and projected city goals. If the County’s goals have changed, and additional density is now required or desired due to changed County circumstance, we respectfully request that the County specify, or have your desig- nated representatives, staff or consultants indicate, what additional density is being proposed. The JPA contemplates evolu- tionary changes to the development, and provides a mechanism for revisions during the build out of the development. But it is impossible for the City or the public to evaluate the traffic, environmental and service delivery impacts of “more.” The City disputes the County’s interpreta- tion that the City views TCAAP as an inconvenience. It is just the opposite. The City views this project as a valuable asset to the City and region. The City is committed to meeting its obligations under the JPA to use good faith to attempt to resolve any dispute but we do not agree with the County that negotiations are at an impasse and that mediation is the only means of resolving our differences, and we certainly don’t agree with the County’s contention that a decision regard- ing the development of the TCAAP site cannot be made in a public forum. Sincerely, David Grant, Mayor Brenda Holden, Councilmember Dave McClung, Councilmember Fran Holmes, Councilmember Steve Scott, Councilmember City Council Sends Mediation Response Letter to Ramsey County Board of Commissioners