My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 02/13/2007
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
2007
>
Minutes - Council - 02/13/2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2025 2:32:05 PM
Creation date
3/13/2007 1:47:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
02/13/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />assess, which cities don't assess, and there are some cities that assess less and some that assess <br />more. There should be a review of this information without making blihd statements without <br />factual data. <br /> <br />Case #2: <br /> <br />Authorize Execution of Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Ryan <br />Companies US Inc. for Ramsey Crossings <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon reviewed that in 2006, the City solicited <br />development proposals from various developers for the redevelopment of land west of <br />Armstrong known as Ramsey Crossings. After reviewing those proposals, the City initially <br />selected RCM - Minnesota Corporation ("Muir") as a potential developer for the Development <br />Property. The City and Muir entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement dated as of July <br />26, 2006. Muir terminated the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement by a letter to the City's <br />consultant, James Lasher of LSA Design, Inc. delivered on January 26, 2007. Mr. Trudgeon <br />stated Ryan Companies US, Inc. ("Ryan") was one of the developers that submitted a proposal in <br />response to the City's original request for proposals, and the City would like to enter into <br />negotiations with Ryan to determine if the City and Ryan can reach an agreement pursuant to <br />which Ryan would develop Ramsey Crossings. Ryan has indicated that this agreement is <br />necessary for them to proceed to have discussions with potential end users in the Ramsey <br />Crossings project. Mr. Trudgeon stated the costs for drafting the Exclusive Negotiation <br />Agreement and the negotiation with Ryan for the Ramsey Crossings project have been directed <br />to the Ramsey Crossings escrow account. It is the intention of the City to recover these costs as <br />part of the final agreement with Ryan Companies. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen questioned why the City would need to work with just one developer <br />with this exclusive agreement, rather than working with multiple developers to find out what will <br />be in the best interest of the City, as opposed to putting their eggs in one basket for 60 days. He <br />noted the City worked through this with Muir, and as he understands it, it seems a lot of that <br />work has been forged forward and could be used as a good stepping stone. <br /> <br />Mr. Trudgeon replied the long answer is that the City can do this anyway they would like; <br />however, there are very few development companies that can do a project of this magnitude. <br />When the City put out RFP's for this area, Ryan Companies was one of the groups that <br />submitted. The short answer is that for Ryan or any developer to secure a contract with a <br />company to come into a project like this, those companies will want to see that the developer is <br />the real deal and can deliver the project. More specifically, Target has said they need to be sure <br />Ryan is working with the City, and they cannot commit until they know Ryan is working in <br />partnership with the City. The tenants need to have assurance that the project can happen and the <br />developer is representing himself properly in that he can develop the project within the <br />community. Ryan has requested that the City enter into this agreement, which helps their <br />negotiations with various tenants. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen questioned the reason for 60 days, as opposed to a shorter period of time. <br /> <br />City Council / February 13, 2007 <br />Page 10 of25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.