CCP 02-13-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I iJOM 1W~ I. CITY OF ARDEN fiLLS 1&4 e MEMORANDUM ~ I DATE: February 10, 1995 ~ . TO: Mayor and City Council (\~ Brian Fritsinger, City Administrat~ I FROM: SUBJECT: Arden Hills Gateway Business District I The purpose of this memorandum is to set forth the staff recommendations concerning the latest I expression of the terms and conditions under which Everest Development has stated that it is willing to proceed to develop the proposed business park project. The following addresses, in the order set forth in Everest's January 30, 1995 letter, the points raised in the letter: I 1. The first item in the January 30th letter is merely a statement of the build-out assumptions used by Everest in its proposal. Neither staff nor Everest believe that this schedule will I be the schedule on which the buildings will actually be built. 2. Staff supports 1he use of tax-exempt bonds to fund the public improvements if the bonds .- can be sold tax-exempt, and still allow the City to obtain sufficient security to ensure that the debt service on the bonds will be generated. Staff discussions to date with bond attorneys indicate that bonds guaranteed by Everest may have to be sold as taxable bonds. I However, we are still exploring ways in which the bonds might be structured to allow them to be tax exempt. Related to this item, staff has recently become aware that, depending on the final site configuration of Everest's development, it may be necessary to I relocate a main sewer line running through the property. If necessary, the cost of such a relocation could be between $750,000 and $1,000,000. Any agreement be1ween the City I and Everest needs to anticipate this possibility. , Staff supports the concept expressed in item 3 that Everest will be responsible for ~. I assembling the site but that the City will use its powers of eminent domain if necessary. This assumes that we can reach agreement on a process by which the City, in its condemnation of parcels, will not be financially at risk. Also, Everest expressed its I desire to be able to stop a condemnation if the cost of the land is determined to be excessive. Given that desire, a number of difficult timing issues arise that must be handled in a development agreement. I 4. Item 4 discussed the proposed allocation of tax increment. As the Council is aware, one of staffs main concerns wilh the proposal is the absence of any cap on the amount of tax I increment that may be recovered by Everest. Everest's desire is to be able to hit a "home run" if it is more successful in developing the project than anticipated. Our response to I- that is that it should be possible to define what is meant by a "home run". That definition I