My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 11-29-2004
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
CCP 11-29-2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:19:52 PM
Creation date
11/14/2006 3:36:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
117
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
<br />.< <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~ <br />~~HILLS <br /> <br />CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA <br />CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION <br />MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2004, 5:37 P.M. <br />CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1245 WEST ,HIGHWAY 96 <br /> <br />1. Cllll To Order <br /> <br />Present: Mayor Aplikowski, Councilmembcrs Rem, Larson, Holden, and Grant <br />Also Present: Ctiy Administrator Michelle Wolfe, Community Development Director <br />Scott Clark, City Attorney Jerry filla, <br /> <br />Others Present: Resident David McClung, and Pioneer Press Reporter Allan Poweil <br /> <br />The work session was called to order at 5:37 p.m. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark reviewed his memo dated September 13, 2004, which WaS included in the <br />Council packet. His memo outlines "talking points" or issues for discussion with regards <br />tq the Interim Agreement with CRR, Inc. for the TCAAP project <br /> <br />The first discussion was regarding the expiration date. Consensus was that the amended <br />agreement would run for two years. The next discussion was the corporate name, which <br />is proposed to remain "CRR, Inc." even though Centex is no longer parI of the team. <br />(There was a typo in the memo listing the corporate name as "CCR", which was clarified <br />to' be "CRR") <br /> <br />The next discussion topic was the Project Budget. The Developer would like to expand <br />the basis for reimbursement. There was discussion regarding the basis for this request. <br />FOr example, one basis for reimbursement could be if the planning and development <br />process continues and is ultimately approved, but the land use (which requires a 415 vote) <br />fails. eRR would like to see costs reimbursed for work that still has value to the City <br />andlor a new developer. For illustrative purposes only, Mr. Clark had listed some <br />potential reimbursement percentages by the various budget categories. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated that he was not in favor of expanding the list of <br />reimbursable items. Councilmember Larson said that it seems fair to not create a <br />"windfall" for a future developer. The City's risk is fairly low; whether we wait the three <br />years before working with a new developer so that the reimbursement is a moot point, or <br />we negotiate with a new developer to reimburse us for those costs. <br /> <br />\ \Earth \Admin \CouncillM inutes\W orksession \2004\09.13-04- 2 ,doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.