My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council Work Session - 03/06/2007
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council Work Session
>
2007
>
Minutes - Council Work Session - 03/06/2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2025 2:42:34 PM
Creation date
3/27/2007 1:36:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council Work Session
Document Date
03/06/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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 />Community Development Director Trudgeon clarified the minimum assessment is the assessed <br />value the County gives under the TIF, structure or no structure. There is a normal statement <br />included in all TIF agreements to a minimum assessed value so they can guarantee the cashflow <br />coming in. The TIF agreement is different than the 429 assessment agreement. <br /> <br />Mr. Lasher indicated if the developer were to hold a couple of pads in the project they would still <br />be required to pay the value of those parcels as if they are built. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look questioned if the City TIF amount of$5,160,000 is certain. <br /> <br />Mr. Lasher replied it is not certain because there is not a site plan to evaluate at this time. <br /> <br />Economic Development Coordinator Sullivan explained the $5,160,000 in City TIF is calculated <br />with an assumption of the tax rate and fiscal disparities contributions remaining the same. The <br />City's lock is the assessment agreement, as well as the TIF agreement that requires the developer <br />to pay a certain amount of dollars either in property taxes or out of the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Lasher commented on the positive aspect of a redevelopment project being able to stand on <br />its own. He explained there are costs in redevelopment projects that normal development does <br />not have to suffer, such as assembling the property and new road systems. This is one reason <br />why redevelopment projects usually require assistance; luckily at this point in time the Ramsey <br />Crossings project can stand on its own without assistance from the City. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec clarified with Mr. Lasher that the sewer will be brought to the end of Parcel A at <br />116th Street. <br /> <br />Mr. Lasher reviewed the Ramsey Crossings Preliminary Project Schedule - Ryan Companies. <br />He advised Ryan Companies has indicated that in their discussions with primary anchors they <br />need an additional 180 days to perform on the project and a binding Letter of Credit. This <br />extension is a big change in the project. Ryan Companies has indicated they cannot deliver the <br />home improvement anchor in the time stipulated for the Letter of Credit. Mr. Lasher advised <br />ultimately the City would be asked to carry the property for 16 months. The good thing is if the <br />City is able to obtain the six month extension on the eminent domain proceedings it would <br />reduce their carrying costs with a savings of approximately $400,000 in interest. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich provided an overview of the process for the City to receive an extension <br />on the eminent domain proceedings. He advised the preferable way to proceed would be to <br />obtain stipulations or agreements with the various owners. This could be achieved by getting the <br />16 owners to agree to close on the property in December of 2007 instead of July of 2007. The <br />following incentives could be offered to the property owners: <br />1. They would not need to move until possibly December 31, 2008. <br />2. Possibility of remaining on the property rent free for one year if agreed to by Council. <br />3. Possibility of a property tax break. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich advised there will likely be at least two or three property owners that <br />will not be interested in extending the closing date. It is very likely if the extension request <br />proceeds to court the judgment will be that the City has had 270 days and either needs to buy the <br />property or end the eminent domain proceedings. If this is the situation Council will need to <br />make some difficult decisions on how to proceed. <br />City Council Work Session I March 6, 2007 <br />Page 4 of8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.