04-12-1999 EDA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page Two March 10, 1999 • Less intensive building-to-land coverage (more open space) — 23% building coverage with office/flex plan as compared to 34% building coverage with office/warehouse plan. • Less truck traffic The existing Agreement was initially approved by the City in February, 1998, after several years of discussion, presentation, earnest negotiation and compromise. The existing Agreement remains valid and effective as approved, even though unsigned. The only reason the Agreement is unsigned is that the prior Council/EDA required, as a condition to execution of the Agreement, prepayment of the park dedication fee imposed in connection with the replat of the Building N site. As a real estate developer operating in an ever-changing marketplace, we elected not to pay the park dedication fee and sign the Agreement until such point as we were certain we could proceed with the project. Under the existing Agreement we have the right to develop the office/warehouse project originally contemplated under the terms of the pay-as-you-go TIF deal contained in the Agreement. We are seeking the flexibility to develop a higher quality office/flex project under the same essential terms and conditions. Although the EDA members were not very specific Monday night in their reasons for postponing consideration of the Agreement modifications, there was mention of questions regarding the 8% interest rate in the TIF Revenue Note. It is important for the EDA members to understand that the interest rate is but one element among many interrelated economic terms in the Agreement, terms that were arrived at and agreed upon as a result of long and sometimes contentious negotiation, trade-offs and compromise. The interest rate cannot be looked at in isolation. In point of fact, there are several financial components of the Building N TIF deal to which Everest objected but ultimately compromised on in finalizing the Agreement. Some of these components are as follows: 1. Park Dedication Fee. The City imposed a park dedication fee in connection with the Building N site replatting in an amount nearly 3 times what we thought it should be under a fair and reasonable application of the City's park dedication ordinance. Prior City staff calculated a park dedication fee of $56,771 versus our calculation of $20,342 using the same appraised value. We believe the City's park dedication fee calculation misapplied the City's ordinance by requiring park dedication fees for portions of the property previously platted, for which park dedication fees had previously been paid. In addition, as mentioned previously, the City imposed the unusual requirement that the park dedication fee had to be paid in full prior to execution of the Development Assistance Agreement, rather than at the time of building permit issuance or plat filing, as typically required.