CCP 09-13-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 3 of 4 Memorandum to City Council Proposed Agreement . successful negotiation of the DDA." This language change helps clarify when Master Development Status happens and under what conditions. Equally important, it needs to be emphasized that CRR docs not become the Mater Developer until after the DDA is negotiated. In the past there may have been some confusion that the Council's approval of a new Interim Agreement automatically gave Master Development status to the development group, which is not the case. Staff recommends a Master Development clause based on the new language. Public Participation CRR proposes that the new Agreement contain language that obligates the City to provide financial assistance as needcd for this project. Additional comments by CRR included I) the argument that redevelopment projects of this magnitude and complexity need public dollars as part ofthe overall financial package lmd 2) funds would be eannarked for environmental remediation, installation of infrastructure ( staff is of the opinion that infrastructure should carry a definition of including utilities, transportation systems and on-site amenities that create asset value to the project) and demolition of existing facilities. The inclusion of public participation within the Agreement appears to be the biggest point of discussion. Policy and direction questions for the Council include: I) Is thc Council agreeable to thc overall conccpt of providing public assistance if a verifiable financial gap can be demonstrated? The term public assistance is defined as any source of funds including grants, bonding, tax increment and/ tax abatement and other offsetting cost programs. 2) If the City does not want this language in the agreement, is the City willing to sever and terminate the relationship with CRR. 3) Ifthe Council wants to proceed with exploring the concept of public participation, how does the Council want to proceed in becoming more comfortable with the idea of a possible need, fonns of assistance, etc. . Staffrecommends the concept of including some type ofIanguage reflecting the potential need for public participation. However, this should be viewed as an open item of negotiation as the specific language of how this section is written is critical relevant to the future expectations of all parties. Ch aracterization Suggested change is that a representation be made that the City is a strong advocate for this projcct (this may mean some wording change to item 4.0 A. Id. of the old Agreemnt) Also, the Agreement would reflect, due to conditions beyond the Developer's control, that full characterization would not be completed on the TCAAP until at least the spring of 2005. Stafr recommends these changes. .