HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.A, TCAAP Public Auction Process & Discussion �. EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 21,2010 Item 2.A
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: James Lehnhoff, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: TCAAP Public Auction Process Update and Discussion
Backiround
At the May 24, 2010, meeting, the City Council requested staff contact Mike Comodeca, the City's
environmental attorney, to have him obtain updates from the Attorney General's Office and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regarding the TCAAP public auction process. Mr. Comodeca
has since been in contact with Carmen Netton at the Attorney General's office and the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency(MPCA). Kevin Legare from the General Service Administration also sent
a partial draft of the environmental remediation requirements that may be used in the Invitation for
Bid (IFB), which was forwarded to Mr. Comodeca for review. Mr. Legare anticipates distributing a
draft IFB at the TCAAP Bidders' Conference on June 24.
Mr. Comodeca will be attending the City Council worksession via a conference call to update the
Council on his discussions with the Attorney General's Office and his review of the draft IFB
language. Based on the update from Mr. Comodeca, this meeting may also be used to provide
direction on preparing a letter to the GSA outlining any City concerns or comments in advance of the
bidders' conference.
Attachment
• Partial draft language for the Invitation for Bid from the General Service Administration
City of Arden Hills
City Council Worksession for June 21, 2010
C:(Documents and Settings lbecky.brazys ILocal Settings I Temporary InternetFileslContent.Outlook12R69UP451062110-CCMemo-TCAAPIFB
Review.doc
Page I of I
77
James Lehnhoff
To: kevin.legare@gsa.gov
Subject: RE: Update
-----Original Message-----
From: kevin.legare@gsa.gov [mailto:kevin.legare@gsa.gov]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 2:00 PM
To: James Lehnhoff
Subject: RE: Update
Hello James,
From the City's perspective, how does the park dedication requirement
change to accommodate the 30 acre trail proposal? This review and change
by the Planning Commission in the requirement would be the evidence as
supported in the letter?
Still working the draft IFB but wanted to send you a snapshot of the
proposed deal structure. The proposed disposal alternative contemplates no
more than three successive closings, i.e., a phased fee conveyance of the
entire 430 acres. The 430 acres will be divided into three parcels to
include a blend of remediation responsibility and fee owned land.
Conditions of the first closing include:
1. 50% of the bid price would be given to the U.S. as additional deposit
monies for approximately 200 acres of fee simple land by deed (FOST
restricted to industrial)
2. A license for the remaining portions of the property which includes ALL
Operating Units (OU) 5-23, as shown on the FOST map. The license would
allow the developer access to the remaining portions of the site for
remediation purposes only.
3. An executed Response Action Agreement with buyer and MPCA
The second closing should be predicated on the buyer's performance for
cleanup under the FAA/RAA. An additional 25% of the bid price would be
given to US for approximately 200 acres of fee simple (restricted to
industrial) land, but only if a percentage (13 of the 19 OUs are finished)
of the cleanup has occurred. The buyer can select which of the 13 to
complete first . This is open for discussion but the trigger for the second
closing will be tied to some remediation.
As for the third closing, fee simple unrestricted (northern parcel) would
be conveyed if all 19 OUs are finished and the remaining 25% of the bid
price is paid. Anticipated timeline for the last of the three successive
closings is 3-5 years.
These issues will be discussed at the upcoming bidders conference to
stimulate market reaction and industry feedback. This feedback will drive
the final IFB. I have a map being drafted that will serve as a good visual
for the above narrative and hope to have this to you later this week.
Thank you, Kevin