My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-08-25-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2025
>
09-08-25-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/8/2025 5:02:49 PM
Creation date
9/8/2025 4:59:52 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.
/
103
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
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — AUGUST 11, 2025 2 <br />The JDA discussed solicitation questions they had identified at their July meeting. JDA staff <br />provided an overview of the different roles of a developer, such as a vertical developer who might <br />complete a specific product type for the construction such as a builder for single family homes, <br />multi -family housing, or commercial, or a land developer that focuses on horizontal construction, <br />or a lead developer who then coordinates those sub -developers who have expertise in the different <br />areas of construction for the site. Staff noted that it would take coordination between the County <br />and City to determine feasibility if the JDA was interested in knowing more about a scenario <br />where the JDA acts as the lead developer for seeking those development partners for the site. <br />Commissioners requested that staff start to prepare a list of what those discussion items are for <br />their respective parties. Staff agreed to bring this list forward at a future JDA meeting for <br />additional discussion. The JDA had consensus that they'd like to proceed with a Request for <br />Information. This is a process that can be used to gauge interest from developers and gather <br />information on market topics such as best practices, industry standards, pricing, or technology. <br />Staff will be assembling more information and the scope of an RFI for additional discussion at the <br />September JDA meeting. JDA staff will need to work through this process to identify the types of <br />questions that would be asked in the RFI. <br />Lastly, Commissioners discussed hosting a community event and directed staff to research the <br />idea of creating a virtual series on Rice Creek Commons that could be topic -specific. Participants <br />could register to attend a webinar series, but then these could also be saved on the Rice Creek <br />Commons website for people to go back later and watch. <br />Neither Advisory Committee has met since the last Council meeting. The next JDA meeting will <br />be held Tuesday, September 91h due to the Labor Day holiday. <br />Councilmember Holden asked why the City's Attorney was spending so much time on TCAAP <br />at this time. <br />City Administrator Jagoe explained the City Attorney was attending both closed and open <br />meetings where TCAAP discussion was being held, to ensure the City was being properly <br />protected and represented. <br />Mayor Grant commented on the recovery formula for TCAAP and inquired if the City had been <br />properly reimbursed for expenses for the 42 acres that was currently being developed. <br />City Administrator Jagoe reported the TCAAP development professional charge was written <br />into the fee schedule to assist with recovering the City's expenses. She indicated the City had <br />charged the Micro Control project for the 10 acres that was currently being developed. She stated <br />the remaining 32 acres would be charged the same fee when a development project comes <br />forward to the City. <br />Mayor Grant questioned how much Micro Control was charged to develop the 10 acres in <br />TCAAP. <br />City Administrator Jagoe indicated the fee was $2,743 per acre or $27,430. <br />Mayor Grant reported if TCAAP is 427 acres and the thumb parcel was 42 acres, this was <br />approximately 10% of the project. He explained that the developer, Alatus, had agreed to <br />reimburse the City $1 million and through the proposed fee, the City would only be reimbursed <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.