My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-08-21-SR
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2021
>
11-08-21-SR
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2021 12:24:08 PM
Creation date
11/5/2021 12:23:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />October 4, 2021 <br /> <br /> <br />David Perrault, City Administrator <br />City of Arden Hills <br />1245 Highway 96 W. <br />Arden Hills, MN 55112-5743 <br /> <br /> <br />RE: TrustMember: City of Arden Hills <br />Claimant: Ramsey County, Minnesota <br />Our File: GL 87129 <br /> <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Perrault: <br /> <br />As you know, this case has come to a conclusion. It involved a dispute between the plaintiff and <br />city over the redevelopment of the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) site, later <br />renamed Rice Creek Commons. The parties were unable to come to an agreement regarding key <br />aspects of the project, including financing, density, and affordable housing, and were unable to <br />finalize a Master Development Agreement or Cooperative Financing Agreement. The plaintiff <br />alleged the city was in breach of contract (a breach of the Joint Powers Agreement) and was in <br />breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. They asked that the Court declare <br />the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) and the Joint Development Authority (JDA) to be null and void <br />and of no further purpose or effect. Further, they asked that the Court declare they have <br />discharged its obligations under the JPA and are under no continuing obligation to perform under <br />the JPA except as necessary to wind down the JDA and to dispose of or resolve any joint assets or <br />liabilities. The plaintiff asked the Court to Order the city to participate and cooperate in winding <br />down the JDA. The District Court denied the summary judgment motions of both the plaintiff and <br />city. Neither party filed an appeal. We did not make any payment to the plaintiff. However, <br />LMCIT did incur $794,275.95 in litigation costs (legal defense costs). <br /> <br />As per my letter to you of May 19, 2019, LMCIT handled this claim as land use and special risk <br />litigation. The coverage agreement states that LMCIT will pay 100% of the first $25,000 of <br />litigation costs (city qualified for the land use incentive), 85% of the next $225,000 of litigation <br />costs, and 60% of any litigation costs in excess of $250,000 which are incurred after the litigation <br />has been reported to LMCIT. <br /> <br />The amount LMCIT pays for litigation costs for land use and special risk litigation is subject to the <br />Municipal Liability Deductible shown in the Municipal Liability Declarations, or the General
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.