Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Minutes <br />May 22, 1984 <br /> <br />Schmidt expressed concern about prDject being on both <br />sides of the street. <br /> <br />Winkels indicated that our concern in designing the <br />Agreement was to take into consideration the develop- <br />ment of the project at the same rate and recognized <br />there are still a lot of steps to be taken. <br /> <br />Jim Casserly, Miller & Schroeder, reviewed the financial <br />analysis. <br /> <br />Daniel Wiles, O'Connor & Hannon, reviewed the agree- <br />ments indicating changes since they were printed. <br /> <br />Harcus asked for clarification where the city would be <br />required to reimburse. Casserly stated that would <br />happen only if final approval was given and tax incre- <br />months were not issued. <br /> <br />Harcus stated that if one of the members of the develop- <br />ing team went bankrupt, there has to be financial <br />stability satisfactory to the city. <br /> <br />Schmidt asked how the two agreements work together. <br /> <br />Benke asked what would happen if the city turned it over <br />earlier. Casserly responded that the dates ;n the <br />agreement would be brought forward and Wiles indicated <br />it would be in everyone's best interest to do that. <br /> <br />Schmidt asked when the agreements were uncoupled, <br />because he isn't comfortable with not having the oppor- <br />tunity to discuss it with Casserly and Winkels. <br /> <br />Patrick Plunkett, Morstock in St. Paul, attorney, <br />indicated the agreement was split because it is easier <br />to develop one parcel at a time and construction could <br />begin on the sDuth side and be ready for sale in the <br />spring, giving Cimarron finances. Also, if Cimarron <br />defaulted on the south side, the city would have no <br />obligation to issue bonds for the north side. <br /> <br />Harcus indicated he would have been more comfortable <br />if he ~uld have time to review the agreements and <br />Schmidt stated he was not comfortable with no computer <br />run. Blomquist felt it was not typical to not have <br />the informatiDn in advance, and the summary memo also <br />needs updating; asked for a new summary memo and time- <br />table. <br /> <br />Motion by Blomquist, seconded by Schmidt to DEFER <br />CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH CIMARRON <br />BUILDING ASSOCIATION FOR MIXED USE OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL <br />DEVELOAKENT PROJECT UNTIL A SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 30,1984 AT 6:30 P.M. <br /> <br />Page Nine <br />