HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 03-01 City Council Manager Workshop PacketAGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
MANAGER WORKSHOP
6:15 P.M. Monday, March 1, 2010
Council Chambers, City Hall
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
E. NEW BUSINESS
1. Discussion Of Considering Purchase Of Property Within Fish Creek Area (CoPar
Property) And Consider Options For Recovery Of Costs
F. ADJOURNMENT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLAND
AGENDA REPORT
Work Session Agenda Item E1
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: DuWayne Konekwo, Director of Community Development/Parks
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Discussion of Considering Purchase of Property within Fish Creek Area
[CoPar Property] and Consider Options for Recovery of Costs
DATE: February 25, 2010
INTRODUCTIONISUMMARY
The former CoPar property has recently been placed on the market for sale at a price of $2,750,000.
This item is placed on the agenda for discussion of a concept for acquisition of the property in order to
protect the pristine portions of the site. The protection of this site was a priority goal of the City Council
at the February 5, 2010 retreat, although discussions at that time were focused along the lines of a
referendum approach. This concept is still being developed; however, the staff would like to review
the overall principles and approaches prior to further exploration of the concept, in order to gauge the
Council's support for these procedures.
The Concept:
1. The City, acting through the Economic and Development Authority (EDA) would enter into a
purchase agreement for the entire 73 acres. During the litigation of the proposed CoPar
development, the City acquisition of the property was estimated at $12 million. This property is
now available for $0.25 on the dollar.
2. A consultant planner, working with our Community Development staff, would develop concepts
for the land use of the property based upon our Conservation Principles, recently adopted for
this area of our community.
3. Our Parks staff would work with the Park Commission and Environment and Natural
Resources Commission to develop areas of the property that would permanently protected
under all design concepts.
4. The consultant planner, working with both the Conservation Principles and the desired
protection areas as defined through the Park Commission, would develop a site plan. Based
upon preliminary estimates, the net buildable area of the entire 73 acres is 40 -45 acreas. This
plan would be coordinated with the Planning Commission.
5. Based upon the current land use, the maximum number of buildable lots using the 1.5 units per
buildable acre would be 60 -67 lots.
6. The City engineering staff, working with a consultant engineer, would prepare feasibility studies
on the cost of the infrastructure, based upon the site plan.
7. The City's economic development staff, working through the Business and Economic
Development Commission (BEDC), would begin marketing of the various phases of the project
in 8 -10 lot increments.
8. The City's Public Works Department coordinating with the marketing efforts, would implement
improvements for the infrastructure in various phases as the property areas are resold. It is
anticipated that about 50% of the 73 acres would actually be marketed, with the goal that at
least half of the property be retained for natural purchases. An alternative to this approach that
would reduce expenditures might be to offer the paper lots to developers and allow the
developer to implement the improvements. This would reduce costs, but also reduce control of
the property improvements.
9. Assessments would be levied against the saleable parcels as a cost securing measure and be
considered as part of the sale agreements.
10. As sale agreements are executed, probably over a 3 -8 year period, the EDA would be paid
back the funding for the project 1 concept.
Packet Page Number 3 of 6
FISH CREEK PURCHASE CONSIDERATION
PAGE TWO
The Financial Concept:
1. Likely concept expenses:
a. Property Purchase:
$2,750,000
b. Infrastructure Costs:
$2,250,000
c. Interests 1 Carrying Costs:
$ 500,000
d. TOTAL Concept Costs
$5,500,000
2. Likely Project Revenues:
a. Sale of property lots — 67 @ $80,000 $5,360,000
i. [range from $50,000 - $125,000]
ii. Average price assumed at $80,000
b. New home PAC Fees — 67 @ $3,500 $ 234,500
c. TOTAL Revenue Costs $5,594,500
Discussion
There are a number of assumptions within this concept that involve risk for the City. First, the Council
has indicated that City debt should be decreased. This concept will not help with that goal. This
concept has risk and will pledge the support of the tax base if the concept fails or takes longer than the
8 year planning period. The dedication of staff efforts to this concept will limit the other initiatives that
the Council may deem appropriate. Finally, this is a concept that puts the City into the private
development world.
There are certainly positives for this concept. The protection of the property is a primary goal and this
is solidly financed, instead of pursuing a referendum during these difficult economic times. With the
City maintaining control of the development site plan, this approach allows the City to balance the
protection needs as the primary development approach. Protection of the natural resources will not be
compromised by the financial incentives.
Next Steps
As noted above, the next steps are for the Council to debate the concept. If acceptable for the staff to
continue exploring this idea, the Council should direct staff to retain some expert services of a
consultant planner, legal advice on the financial plan, along with discussions with our bonding /financial
consultant and bond counsel. The Community Development Department will be taking the lead on the
project, and supported by the Assistant City Manager, who will coordinate the financial and public
works aspects. The City Attorney will also be assisting in exploring purchase options for the site.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council direct the City Manager to proceed with the Fish Creek
purchase concept.
Attachments:
1. Map showing property sale information
Packet Page Number 4 of 6
E
0
co
Q2
0
u
I
Q)
- u
E
0
U
Q)
U
•
•
•
•
0
ON=
4 NNO
1wam
a
Oo
LO E
............
...............................
0
a.
10 C)
`0 V
J
J
C�
.,o
Ln
-8
0
r_
v
C ,
E
0
%0
N
CC
CO Z C CO
O� CO
+I
0
U-
Im
C') E
CD 0
C
Ol u
CV
C
LO
0
.........................................
LO E
... ............................
N
v CD LO CD co
a.
10 C)
`0 V
J
J
N CD CO CD C
C "1 '0 CD
,, e
w
Ln LO "T CO
r_
v
C ,
S Ln
O.
CN
0 @ U
)
CC
CO Z C CO
O� CO
C C
LO
2
2
ac
LO LO
0
F- -�e
c
F-
CL U-
C)
CD 0
CD
2
E
0
V
I
E 0
0 u
co
- u
E
0
U
Q)
U
•
•
•
•
•
•
mom= •
LMMMMVM
0
no=
NNO I
1 mu
L
a
m
m
I
I
..................
C) E
(D 0
C
ol u
N @)
LO
0
.............
LO E
10 C)
'0
ol u
g)
Lo -t�
o' 2
--
c
0
0-
U m
C)
............
...............................
cc�
.,0
Ln
%0
N
+I
c
0
U-
..................
C) E
(D 0
C
ol u
N @)
LO
0
.............
LO E
10 C)
'0
ol u
g)
Lo -t�
o' 2
--
c
0
0-
U m
C)
.....................
CD Lo CD co
CD CO CD C
C IT 10 CD
L/) Lo 'T CO
LO 4
C CO
C � O �
v� Lo Lo
N -
o a ol
CL �- U-
CD 0
CD
O
I
cc�
c
In
C
O
C4
(D
cm
LLj
CL
w
=
&
-a
.....................
CD Lo CD co
CD CO CD C
C IT 10 CD
L/) Lo 'T CO
LO 4
C CO
C � O �
v� Lo Lo
N -
o a ol
CL �- U-
CD 0
CD
O
I