Laserfiche WebLink
City Administrator Norman stated that the meeting was not intended to be a negotiation session, <br />but rather a time to provide the Council with an up to date status of the negotiations. <br /> <br />Tom Bray, Briggs and Morgan, the City's lead Attorney in the negotiation process, presented a <br />draft development agreement from the Developer's Attorney and the City Attorney's. Mr. Bray <br />explained that there were four outstanding issues which included developer public <br />improvements, City public improvements, AUAR improvements (County and regional road <br />improvements not located within the site), and structured parking in the core business district. <br />As it relates to the developer public improvements, the biggest issue is trying to understand the <br />timing of the improvements and breaking them up into phases as it relates to the developers <br />buildout schedule, in addition to agreeing to a security the developer will supply for the phasing. <br />For the City public improvements, the City would issue bonds for Phase I, which would be paid <br />back by benefited property owners and tax revenue the City receives from the development. The <br />utility improvements would also be financed through City issued bonds and paid for by utility <br />hook up charges. The Phase II improvements would be financed using the same mechanism. <br />What is still under discussion is how much and what type of development would have to be in <br />place before the City would proceed with Phase II. The City would like to see some level of <br />commercial development before Phase II is constructed, but they are still discussing what that <br />level would be. As it relates to the Developer's share of assessments, the City would levy the <br />assessment to be paid over 15 years, but the developer would be required to pay the full <br />assessment for a piece of property at the time of the sale of land. In regards to the AUAR <br />roadway improvements, at some point those improvements would be necessary to manage traffic <br />on the site. This is an issue they were still struggling with. To date they have not had a positive <br />result from the County or MnDOT. A part of the solution may be that if the development gets to <br />a point where they cannot manage the traffic the City may have to slow down or stop <br />development until the road issue can be addressed. During the negotiations there has been an <br />agreement that there be a certain level of commercial and residential development occurring at <br />the same time, but they have not reached an agreement on what that level will be. In regards to <br />the future City Hall site they are discussing the possibility of exchanging 5.6 acres of land the <br />City owns for the City Hall site in the TC-1 district. The Developer has expressed concern with <br />tying up a core piece of property so they are requesting that the City use the site within six years <br />and if the City is not able to, the Developer would offer them another site. To date, they had not <br />been able to spend much time determining what the other parcel may be. The second component <br />is the site for the park and ride facility. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich explained that the City currently owns the northerly 90 feet of the parcel <br />as right of way for C.R. #116, which the City no longer needs. Occasionally, City Councils have <br />decided that they want to keep the right of way as a buffer for existing residents, but there have <br />been no promises made. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig inquired if the land was currently being assumed for development. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied yes. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session/September 2, 2003 <br /> Page 2 of 8 <br /> <br /> <br />