Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />Mr. Peter Carlson <br />Page 3 <br />April 10. 2002 <br /> <br />In November, I again communicated with your legal counsel, John Koneck, who indicated that <br />Chesapeake Wlls purchllsing the adjoining Morris Communication's Company (Moms) parcel, <br />and acknowledged after talking with you, that Chesapeake still had an "interest" in purchasing <br />the A. T ,S. parcel as the "development" parcel would be "better" if it were included. <br />Following authorization from my client, I presented to Mr. Koneck an offer of sale at $2.6 <br />million conditioned upon: 1.) closing on March 31. 2002; and 2.) payment by Chesapeake of <br />all real estate taxes due and payable in 2002,. The good faith reduction in purchase price was <br />predicated on changing market conditions in the specialty steel industty, as well as <br />consideration of potential consolidation andJor downsiziIig of the A.T.S. business. Please <br />keep In mind that it my clients' valuatiOli. case is ultimately presented in a contested <br />cODd~tion, the just compensation claim Jor fair market value of the subject property , <br />8lI. improved will be in excess of $3,040,000, together with a substantial claim for <br />relocation assistance, reestablishment and moving expenses in excess of $100,000. <br /> <br />You requested the opportunity to inspect the building, and my client agreed. Following our <br />. January 18, 2002; viewing of the building and improvements with you and your partner, it was <br />our understanding that you would reply to my clients' counter offer. <br /> <br />Chesapeake has failed and/or refused to either accept the terms of sale or make any attempt <br />. toward good faith negotiation. I further understand thaI you had a direct meeting with Mark <br />McKee, in my absence, and expressed to him that Chesapeake is "not interested" in purchasing <br />the A.T.S. parcel-at least at this time. <br /> <br />Chesapeake's claimed disinterest in the A.T.S, parcel is most puzzling in view of the fact that: <br />1.) in December 2001, Chesapeake closed on the purchase of the Morris parcel; 2.) <br />Chesapeake is continuing to negotiate with MT Properties for purchase of tile 2 .4~acre railroad <br />right of way; and 3.) in tile March 4, 2002, edition of the Real Esrare Journal you describe <br />your Interstate Crossing development as uready to go" for development as a 26.5 acre <br />corporate headquarter facility. Again, the concept plan depicted in the article shows full <br />. Incorporation and utilization of the A:T.S. parcel. <br /> <br />In summary, the A.T.S. parcefis elIsentiallo your marketing and development plans. The <br />City's Master PUD approval and plat approval were further contingent upon lllIsemblage of the <br />A. T .S. parcel. My clients can no lODger place therr business and business planning on hold <br />while waiting for Chesapeake to engage in good faith negotiatioUllIo purchase the A.T.S. <br />parcel as required by: 1.) Chesapeake's representations to the City of Arden Hills; and 2.) the <br />development approvals granted by the City, conditioned upon acquisition and assemblage of <br />the A.T.S, parcel. <br /> <br />~,/O, .68d~9vB#---...r.n;( ~ ~8:6 WlvO/60 <br /> <br />~ vBU09v '99 <br /> <br />.V.dlJaTll~~jualT18'JapUe^al :AQ luas <br />