The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 06-29-2005 e , I ~ ~HILLS Approved; September 26, 2005 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL-GSA MEETING June 29, 2005, 7:15 A.M. CITY HAI_L COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1245 WEST HIGHWAY 96 CITY COUNCIL -GSA MEETING CALLED TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Aplikowski, Councilmembers Grant, Larson, and Holden, Administrator Wolfe, Community Development Director Clark, Bart Rehbein (CRR), Jeff Knutson (CRR) Also in the audience: David McClung, David Hammernick (National Guard), David Fuller (TCAAP), Megan Perry (Bulletin Newspapers) The Mayor opened the meeting with introductions. The then asked Mr. Clark to outline the discussion for the meeting. Mr. Clark distributed copies of a memorandum dated June 7, 2005, He indicated that the GSA is doing a new appraisal on the TCAAP site, He indicated that the City should discuss the anticipated scope of their work so that the City's appraisal is consistent with GSA's. He then posed a question to the City Council, asking what else the City should do regarding TCAAP during the time it takes to complete the TCAAP process, He further mentioned that the interim agreement with CRR expired therefore, funding previously available via that agreement is not currently available. The City Council has had some previous discussion, and this meeting was scheduled so they could talk directly with CRR. Mayor Aplikowski referenced a June 7 memo, asking about the first bullet under the heading "General/Further Directions", which states: "Is the Council in agreement with continued support of the TCAAP redevelopment?" Councilmember Grant stated that he felt that everyone is in general agreement, but we have different ideas on how we get there, Under the second bullet, the question is asked "Do we 'park' the project or move forward with parts of it?" Mr. Clark went on to ask if we should park the entire project, continue on certain things, do we continue only things staff can work on, do some things we would need to spend money on? Councilmember Grant responded that on June I, the City had two deliverables: adopting the Financing Plan and completing Phase IV of planning. The City completed both of e I I those. He asked if the GSA had deliverables, and ifso, did they deliver them? For example, we have not yet seen a draft FOSET document or Response Action Agreement. There was general discussion about the need for all parties to meet deadlines. Councilmember Larson stated that he felt we should take a little bit different approach. Mr. Larson suggested that we should use our Congressional delegation at strategic points, He stated that we should put a list together of what we expect GSA to do and ask the Congressional delegation to work on it with them. Councilmember Grant indicated that he is highly supportive of involving the Congressional delegation. He indicated that we should send them monthly updates. Councilmember Larson suggested that we have to call and ask for specific assistance, and layout the case, giving them something to work with, Councilmember Holden stated that we keep hearing how motivated the GSA is, but there is no evidence ofthat. She questioned if the GSA is truly motivated? Councilmember Larson responded that the City needs to motivate them, Councilmcmber Larson stated that he has seen what happens when Congress gets involved with federal agencies. Mayor Aplikowski indicated that there are things happening around us, and if we stay quiet, we may lose part of it. Mr. Knutson stated that CRR believes there are two issues: (I) how do we move forward if you choose to do so; and (2) how do you prepare for when movement starts? He stated that CRR agrees with trying to get Congressional involvement, but other factors need to be discussed. The issue is, are there things that we should do now, in order to be prepared for whcn the next round of negotiations start? For example, he suggested that the City could proceed with a discussion about density, or transportation issues. Councilmember Larson responded that we ought to work on the other terms of the purchase agreement, or at least know what they are, Mr. Knutson stated that there are things we could do internally, for our benefit, hut it wouldn't necessarily be what GSA wants us to do. Councilmember Holden noted there is a different between monetary issues and non-monetary issues. Mayor Aplikowski indicated that she is willing to go forward but not at any cost. Councilmember Holden stated that she doesn't want to spend and money until the GSA has some deliverables. Councilmembcr Larson stated there are things we can do: the City can write a letter to the congressional delegation, after the June 30 meeting with GSA, being very specific in what we want them to do and documenting GSA's commitments. He noted that here are items we can do to advance where we are, but the unknown is how we pay for them. He questioned what CRR would be willing to pay for. e I I Mr. Rehbein indicated that CRR wants to stay involved, and help move along the project. Hc stated that they think a discussion regarding density would be of value, and having that discussion without pressure could help the process. He suggested that they go out and look at projects. This could be something accomplished with very little expense, although it would he helpful to have some involvement from DSU, He also agrecd that working with the Congressional delegation would be helpful. He noted another issue, which is the use of Mike Comadeca's time, Overall, he felt we should go forward with things that don't cost much money but position us well. Mr. Clark stated that other discussions might include transportation, density/product types, sports facility, National Guard plans/issues, and the Congressional delegation involvement. Mr. Knutson questioned what the group would like to see happen at the June 30 meeting with the GSA. For example, he stated that we win want to find out when the appraisal will be completed and when the FOSET will be available for review by the City, Mr. Clark noted that the June 30 meeting is not a negotiation meeting, It is an opportunity to discuss issues and come to an understanding. He stated that the City needs to know why GSA had certain terms in the "Offer to Purchase", and understand why they were included, Mr. Larson stated that we may need to consider an extension of the Interim Agreement with CRR. Councilmember Holden noted that on June 30, there should be a discussion regarding the definition of "highest and best use". She also noted that there should be discussion regarding issues with comparable properties used in the appraisal process. Councilmember Grant stated that the different between "improved" and "unimproved" is also important. Other topics suggested included the Offer to Purchase documcnt, the FOSET and Response Action Agreement status, and the railroad spur. Councilmembers Holden and Larson stated that the City should start the meeting with a position statement, noting how dissatisfied the City was with the process and listing concerns. Mr. Clark noted he was concerned with starting a public meeting that way, since it puts GSA in a defensive position. Councilmembers Holden and Larson both stated that they felt making such a statement was important, and that the City needs to outline what hasn't happened that should have, noting reasons why things haven't advanced on this project. Councilmember Grant agreed, and said that we don't want to give GSA a free pass. He indicated that we don't have to be mean about it, but we should go back and recap the history so far. Mr. Clark summarized that the goals for the June 30 meeting were to (1) discuss the definition of highest and best use; and (2) set deadlines. e , I Mr. Clark stated that the GSA should be aware of our intent to communicate with Congress. Mr. Knutson added that another topic for June 30 should be "other issues besides price". Mr. Larson requested that there be consequences if deadlines are not met. It was noted that we may want to schedule another meeting between Council and CRR after the June 30 meeting. It was also requested that GSA be more flexible with meeting times, The meeting adjourned at 8:20 a.m. ~~. /Beverly ik ski Mayor t f1, .'j ~\\GtL&Q~ ~(JJ Michelle A. Wolfe City Administrator ',IMetro-inet, us lardenhills !Admin ICouncillMinutes ISpeciall2005 Vune 29 Draji, doc