Laserfiche WebLink
Case #B: Consider Ramsey Town Center Park and Trail Agreement <br /> <br />Assistant Public Works Director Olson advised at the time the Council approved the Ramsey <br />Town Center Park and Trail Agreement it was approved with the contingency that the developer <br />would agree to, but there was not a lot of discussion since they are using this proposal as a <br />guideline to develop the initial agreement. There has been a lot of discussion lately in the <br />definition of the improvements and what language needs to change for that to occur. The current <br />agreement before the Council is a slight change from the original agreement. <br /> <br />Assistant Public Works Director Olson explained in regards to Item No. 3, in the original <br />agreement it suggested the outlot that had South Park on it was to be paid for with Phase I and <br />Phase II. The parking ramp assessments were to be paid for so they are free and clear of <br />encumbrances when they come to the City by the developer. That is changed to say it will come <br />to the City without any encumbrances, but the City agrees to reallocate the amount. He noted the <br />total amount listed as $180,291 should be corrected to $187,504. These funds will be spread <br />over the other portions of the property, similar to what they discussed earlier in the Town Center <br />amendment discussion with the other escrows. He explained the major topic of discussion that <br />was brought about was that the developer proposal originally suggested they. would construct <br />$4.2 million worth of parkland improvements within the Town Center. The City identified what <br />they expected would happen in the proposal and have refined those costs as they have gotten <br />further along in the design development stage. It appears they are looking at the same <br />improvements in the $6,4 million dollar range, although there is some overlap with the mass <br />grading-that needs to occur an~vways, and will occur within the parks. The developer has <br />suggested he is willing to spend a minimum of $4.2 million, but is committed to these <br />improvements. The discussion in the recent past has been if the developer gets the improvements <br />done for less than the $6.4 million he will not be tied to the $6.4 million. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich advised in Paragraph 6.1, the last version the Council saw included a 2.5 <br />million dollar park credit. That credit is now up to 3 million dollars. That is ½ million dollar, s to <br />take into consideration. <br /> <br />Assistant Public Works Director Olson explained the developer suggested the change, and he did <br />not have a problem with that. That is the credit the developer will be given to reduce their letter <br />of credit. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig noted in Paragraph 5.2, the language states a minimum of $4,219,144.00 <br />for the parkland improvements. He requested clarification that staff's thought is in pricing <br />through the City process the total would be close to 6.4 million dollars. The amount will be <br />stated at $4,219,144.00, but there will also be a scope and specifications that state the conditions <br />and improvements, and the developer is willing to match the scope and specifications. <br /> <br />Assistant Public Works Director Olson replied this agreement states that the developer is <br />obligated to develop the parkland improvements identified on Exhibit B. If the developer is able <br />to get work completed at a lower cost than the estimates he would not be required to pay the <br />additional monies. <br /> <br />P28 <br /> <br />City Council/November 9,. 2004 <br /> Page 8 of 31 <br /> <br /> <br />