Laserfiche WebLink
Netegaard, John Feges, and he sat down to discuss the situation, which brought them to the <br />Business Terms and Conditions Letter that they are trying to get into legal language. Mr. <br />Netegaard suggested they may need the developer and the City to put together what the benefits <br />and the down sides are for both parties. If it is advantageous to only one party perhaps there <br />should not be an agreement. <br /> <br />Mr. Feges stated he is very proud to be working with the City of Ramsey and the passion <br />everyone has with this project. He stated they are not miles apart when it comes to the concept <br />they want to deliver, and the attorneys complicate it sometimes. What they are trying to solve <br />now, hopefully in short order, is to strike a balance from what the City and RTC want, as well as <br />the other parties such as the bankers and the secondary developers. They also need to continue <br />with the financial realities of why they got into this, with the revenue and the benefit to the <br />community for a substantial tax base and complementary project, as well as to make a profit. <br />They would appreciate just another week for the opportunity to determine the legal aspects. <br />There is nothing on the Business Terms and Conditions that is not being agreed to; the problem <br />is how the attorneys come to the analysis of that and how to structure it and make it fair. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman indicated the attorneys argue that they need signoffs by the parties <br />that have bought into the development, which are the Pact Charter School, NAU and D.R. <br />Horton, as well as anyone else that buys in before the agreement amendment is drafted. The <br />attorneys argue these parties have to be on board first, and the developer is saying that is their <br />responsibility and RTC will do that. He indicated it may be that the attorneys are not in <br />agreement with what is brought forward. <br /> <br />Mr. Feges stated modification to the development must be agreed upon 100 percent. Today they <br />have four or five secondary parties, which in the future could end up being 20 parties. This may <br />be a flaw in the document and they may want to look at language to modify this stating that there <br />can be a consensus on modifications. <br /> <br />Counci hnember Elvig questioned why the attorneys seem to think it will be difficult to obtain the <br />needed approval and signatures from the secondary parties and Mr. Feges seems to think they <br />will be easy to obtain. <br /> <br />Mr. Feges replied financial impacts have been removed from this and signing on would not affect <br />the parties financially. It is his opinion that Jim Deal will sign, and Pact Charter will likely have <br />to have a board decision before they can sign off. He explained D.R. Horton would not be <br />financially affected by signing off. However, they may take the position that if benchmarks are <br />removed they will give up their competitive edge. Issues relating with the parking structure and <br />the special taxing district could affect decisions. Potentially they can get through these issues <br />today, but it may not be as easy when there are more parties signed on. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman indicated if the City and the developer are able to reach an <br />agreement, Mr. Feges may have to negotiate with the secondary parties and possibly cut his own <br />deal. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session/October 5, 2004 <br /> Page 2 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />