CCWS 09-13-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Mr. Filla commented that there is no reason we could not recover these types of expenses. Mr. Clark stated that he estimates this proposal is worth an extra $100,000 beyond what the current agreement commits the City to. Councilmember Grant indicated that he is comfortable with this concept for planning and engineering costs, but not for expanding the number of categories. Mayor Aplikowski stated that the project has been more complicated and she believes CRR is nervous about the direction City Council will take. The process has been longer than anticipated, and the Army and GSA have not met deadlines. Councilmember Holden asked who the lead is for CRR, Ryan or Rehbein. Mr. Clark responded that he has discussed this with Mr. Carlson, and he expects a response soon. Mr. Filla asked if there is a consensus to expand the reimbursement category, as a concept, with details to follow. Mayor Aplikowski responded that she is not having a problem with this idea because the whole thing has been delayed and we have needed more professional assistance. She asked if the rest of the Council is comfortable with staff discussing a percentage amount with CRR? Councilmember Larson stated that he is reluctant to discuss a percentage. Mr. Clark reminded those present that we are talking about the money invested by CRR, not the City. . It was determined that there was consensus to discuss with CRR the concept of expanding the categories for reimbursement and some type of formula. Staff was directed to try and develop specific language the Council could revicw regarding the related topic ofthe list of "triggers" ~ i.e. events that would "trigger" reimbursement. Due to the time, it was decided to delay discussion on the item "Roles and Responsibilities" . The next topic was "Exclusivity". Mr. Clark clarified that CRR does not become the Master Developer until a Final disposition and Development Agreement is finalized. This proposed language does not directly give them that designation. They do not get that status by merely signing the new interim development agreement. There was consensus that everyone was comfortable with this language. The next topic was "Public Participation." Mr. Clark reviewed the section of his September 13 memo relating to this topic. Mr. Larson stated that he is not in favor of anything other than "consideration" of public participation. He is uncomfortable with committing to anything firmer in terms of language at this point. It is too early in the project. Mr. Grant indicated that he agrees with Mr. Larson. Mr. Clark stated that the developer . is unsure how they get comfortable with the City on this topic, given that the City has limited history of using public participation. Thcre was further discussion and then a \ \Earth \Admin\Council\Minutes\ W orksession\2004 \09-13-04- 2.doc