2012_0709_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

AttachmentH Councilmember McGehee opined that this agreement not only precluded the City obtaining the land, but 89 also not getting added protection to a portion of Langton Lake. 90 Mr. Trudgeon advised that the Twin Lakes Regulating Plan identified that area for an addition to 91 Langton Lake Park, the decision as to whether to acquire the property or a fee in lieu of had been the 92 decision of the Parks and Recreation Commission after their deliberation of the issue. While not 93 attempting to speak for the Commission, Mr. Trudgeon surmised that the Commission apparently had 94 determined that taking the fee instead of the land, was based on their ability in the future to improve 95 parks with dollars versus land. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City could acquire land with these funds, 96 but the Commission had apparently decided not to pursue that option at this time. Mr. Trudgeon noted 97 that, even though this parcel and that north on County Road C were owned by the same property owner, 98 a different project was being discussed and became more complex. 99 Councilmember McGehee opined that any park dedication funds should be used to purchase land around 100 Langton Lake Park, especially when the intent was to improve or protect water quality and address other 101 mitigating factors. 102 Indemnification for Operation of Wal-Mart 103 Councilmember McGehee questioned why the City was not indemnified for operation of the Wal-Mart. 104 Regarding day-to-day operations, Mr. Trudgeon deferred to legal counsel. 105 City Attorney Mark Gaughan sought additional clarification from Councilmember McGehee, with 106 Councilmember McGehee advised that she was seeking assurances for proper remediation for TCE or 107 health damages to people accessing or working at the Wal-Mart site for any harm caused by 108 contaminated soils. 109 City Attorney Gaughan noted that Councilmember McGehee’s question assumed City liability and 110 indemnification suggested that the City was assuming some liability, which he didn’t believe would be 111 the case. 112 At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Gaughan summarized the Indemnification Clause included in the draft 113 Development Agreement that would “hold harmless” the City under demands or complaints under the 114 project’s construction. Once completed, Mr. Gaughan advised that he could not fathom any scenario 115 where a private property owner would be required to indemnify the City for anything happening on that 116 private property. 117 Mayor Roe concurred with City Attorney Gaughan that this was certainly not common practice. 118 Councilmember McGehee disputed that assumption, opining that the property was a Brownfield and 119 such an event could happen, especially since this is the first development to occur in the area; and there 120 would be a significant number of employees and shoppers at the facility. 121 Long-Term Continuity of Wal-Mart Operations 122 Councilmember McGehee questioned if it was possible to have an escrow fund established in case Wal- 123 Mart chose to move on and leave behind a large, vacant building that couldn’t be marketed; and to 124 protect Roseville residents against that possibility. Councilmember McGehee advised that she was 125 aware of 159 other communities with vacant, big box stores on no fully remediated land. Mr. Trudgeon 126 advised that any provisions could be suggested for inclusion in a Development Agreement; however, he 127 questioned the effectiveness of some provisions or what the City would want Wal-Mart to do if they 128 chose to close the store in the future. Mr. Trudgeon advised that any remediation should be completed 129 prior to Wal-Mart opening for business; and in his analysis and review of other Development 130 Agreements nation-wide, he was unsure of any advantage to be gained and opined that such a provision 131 might be somewhat unrealistic. 132 Page3of14