HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-13-05
Mayer.
Beverly A.p!ikllwski
~
~HlLLS
Arden Hills City Council
WORK SESSION
Coundl_mbers:
David Grllllt
Breado HIlIdeD
Gregg Larsoa
Lois Rem
6:00 p.m.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Agenda
1. can to Order
2. Aeenda Items
A. Closed MeetiBg to Dlseuss Offers IIIl1f COllBter Offers
for tile Purdtase or Sale &fthe TCMP Property-
Pursu_ to MS 13Ddl5 SUBD 3.c3
.Work Session Meeting wiD resume imIIlediateIy, at'ter tile
. dosed session meedng. No action will be taken by the City
COUDcD at tile closed meedng.
B. TCMP Negotiation :DiSC1lss1~ to the Publk
Staff/Presenters
Scott Clark
Scott Clark
3. Couucil Reoorts
A. Couudlmember Holden
B. CouncDmember LarsoD
C. COllncDmember Rem
D. Counellmember Gl'lUlt
E. Mayor ApUkowski
.
.c~ ..:..:L.'.
. "h'le..- .
1245 W. ~...y96
.A.rdeIlHlls, ~ta
55111
l\5U34.5120
,,"",.ei.4I~_.ua
:I.it!!!
6:00.7:00
7ltN:OO
.
.
.
~
~HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 7, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator
FROM: Scott Clark, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: TCAAP Land Negotiation Discussion Points
The purpose of this Council Work Session is to discuss strategies and issues associated with
advancing the TCAAP process. Staff assumes that by June 13, 2005, the General Services
Administration, GSA, will formally, through a letter, reject the City's term sheet offer of
$35,000,000 for the TCAAP land value and will articulate a time line for a reappraisal. The
following is a proposed outline for discussion of the current key issues,
Land Offer Issues (to be discussed at the closed session).
· What issues are pending that could affect negotiations?
· How will the City respond to the GSA's land offer in the future? If the offer is in excess
of $35,000,000, what type of information will the Council need in order to support a new
value? Staff views that one strategy would be to negotiate the terms in the purchase offer
prior to the new appraisal being released. The terms in the offer are just as, or even more,
of a concern to the development team. A key issue on this point is who will pay for those
negolialions (this will involve Mike Comodeca) which gets into the issue of a new
Interim Agreement.
General/Future Directions
· Is the Council in agreement wilh continued support ofthe TCAAP redevelopment?
· Based on an assumption that a reappraisal will take four months plus to finalize, does the
City want to "park the project" and do nothing during this time period, or does the
Council want to advance various component parts of the process?
· The three processes that could logically be advanced during this period are:
1) Continue our efforts to have the Army complete a draft FOSET document
2) Have the environmental regulators finalize the Response Action Agreement
(known commonly as the Consent Agreement)
TCAAP Lar.d Negotiation
June 7, 2005
Page 2 of2
.
3) Have the City/CRR come to an agreement on density and/ or product type
(possibly the most important).
Densitv and/or Product Tvoe Agreement Issue
· The completion of a "density agreement" would provide CRR wi1h valuable information
that could assist in redefining their preliminary pro forma information and in turn, help
corroborate a future land purchase price,
· The completion of a "density agreement" would be the first part of planning Phase 4 as
shown on the time line attachment 1hat was previously given to Council. If1here was
agreement to proceed on this, a key question is how would 1he process work, e.g,
Planning Commission review first and then to Council,joinl sessions, etc.
· Iftht' Council wants 10 advance 1he "density agreement" discussion, which is done as
Phase 4, who will pay for 1hat service? At the present time the monetary budget, under
the existing City/CRR interim agreement is fully expended.
Communication
· What information and communications should the City have with 1heir Congressional
delegation? To date, our representatives have had a series of status letters given to them
in order to be kept current.
.
· What are key messages to the media and the residents, as to the issues of continuing
negotiations?
Interim Agreement
· Since lhe City does not have an active Interim Agreement wi1h CRR, how do the
individual parties want to proceed with 1his issue?
· Is the City willing to take on more of a "monetary" leadership role? In order to advance
some of the issues discussed in this memorandum, review of offer to purchase terms,
density discussions, is the City willing to pay for a portion ofthese costs?
It is hoped that after this discussion staff will have a consensus from the Council on how to
proceed and the strategies related to 1he same. The new appraisal by lhe GSA is an unfortunate
issue but one that does not appear to be insurmountable,
\\Earth\PlaJming\Misc Files\TCAAP\GSA\ccstatus 6 13 05,doc
.
TeAAP Process Illustrating Planning Phase IV
Relationship to Public Financing
(Page 1 of 3)
evolves
Council.C()nsensu~ & Acceptance of
"8asieli:l1e'~ Need
JULY 2005
* All dates are subject to change
PlanningfMise FilesITCAAPfTCAAPPublicFinanceOrgChart-REVISED.ppt
.
TCAAP Process Illustrating Planning Phase
IV Relationship to Public Financing
(Page 2 of 3)
.. ..... .
On~g:oin9 City q9~~F[I.:S~SiR;ri~.,f{e9ard;ll$1
PlanninglFinah~ialaryp::ot~~rTCAAR "
. 'ConC:T:s"
""
Q)
Ol
ro
0.
c
o
"0
Q)
::J
C
:;:;
C
o
o
.
. .lndividual
"Note: AUAR (environmental review) runs
concurrently with Phase IV
JUL Y 2005-JANUARY 2006
* All dates are subject to change
.
Planning/Mise FileslTCAAPrTCAAPPublicFinanceOrgChart-REVIS ED-Page2.ppt
TCAAP Process Illustrating Planning Phase
IV Relationship to Public Financing
(Page 3 of 3)
Proceed toptarming Phase V ...;.RegulaocWYJrl1plementation
(Comprehensive Plan Amendn1enl,'ZQniqg)
JANUARY2006-MARCH 2006
Finar adjy$trn~~ttoMaster:
Deyelopme~tAgreefllent
Planning/Mise FilesfTCAAPITCAAPPublicFinanceOrgChart-REVIS ED-Page3.ppt
* All dates are subject to change