Ramsey's council's plans still include giving free parking allocation - hundreds of reserved spots in the ramp - to the Flaherty-Collins rental housing project, as a subsidy-incentive for that project to happen.
The expansion of the ramp, now, is related to that rental position intent, later. Suggestions to the contrary, if asserted, should be viewed skeptically - although it appears this expansion step will be taken in any event while the rental project is delayed and still could flip.
It now appears clear that the empty ramp will become a bigger empty ramp soon, but the money is from other jurisdictonal taxing pockets than the Ramsey general funds, or from HRA, or EDA direct taxing effort.
It appears more money is on the table than needed to pay the full construction cost of the ramp expansion. Other chances to spend the remainder are under consideration, with negotiation pending.
Sakry's report is online, here. Please read it all. Excerpting a substantial part, ramp expansion first:
The city will be using a $3.5 million [portion] of a $5.9 million federal Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) grant it received in 2005 to pay for the expansion and a commuter bus service.
Ramsey had previously used approximately $1.6 million to provide Ramsey Star Express bus service to and from downtown Minneapolis for three years. The city now funds the service, which has a ridership of approximately 230 trips a day.
The city is trying to work with Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to see if the excess CMAQ funds can be used to build a pedestrian overpass from the parking ramp to the other side of the railroad tracks as part of the Ramsey rail station project, Olson said.
Tossey does not think the ramp expansion is need[ed].
The existing 590-stall parking ramp is adequate for the city’s existing needs, Tossey said.
“The commuter bus has about 100 riders making 200 trips a day. The ramp is adequate,” he said.
“It is irresponsible to accept (the CMAQ grant) to expand a ramp that is under utilized.”
As a council members, they have a responsibility to the taxpayers of Ramsey as well as the taxpayers in county, the state of Minnesota and the country, Tossey said.
[...] Backous said has been opposed to the expansion from day one.
“It’s not responsible to build that far into the future,” he said
The council has the responsibility to look down the road, Councilmember David Elvig said.
While it needs to balance the budget, the council is trying to build a downtown center and it needs to build the infrastructure for future needs, he said.
[...] The ramp will be used for a park and ride, community access for retail, recreational activities and city services as The COR grows, according to Elvig. [Intent of a for-free giveaway-assignment of hundreds of parking stalls to the rental development not being mentioned]
[...] “To turn the money back after we won it is irresponsible to our people,” he [Elvig] said.
Returning the CMAQ grant would not give it back to the taxpayers, it would go down the road to another project, said Councilmember Jeff Wise.
If the city returned the CMAQ grant, it is possible it may have to come back to the taxpayers when the ramp needs to be expanded in the future, Mayor Bob Ramsey said.
“I’m not willing to put it back. It is a good use of the funds for the city,” he said.
Rail news
[...] The rail authority unanimously approved Aug. 9 to request up to $2 million from the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB) for the right of way acquisition, design and construction of the Ramsey commuter rail station and committed to up to $3 million in matching funds.
CTIB is expected to consider the request in September.
It is the latest step in making the rail station a reality, said Olson.
The July 20 state capital bonding bill included $4 million allocation for the $13.2 million project and the Metropolitan Council is expected to approve its approximately $1.3 million it has committed to the Ramsey rail project as well as the state’s recommended allocation.
According to Olson, the Metropolitan Council commitment to the project is 10 percent of the project cost and it is “subject to the city entering into a transit taxing district.”
“It is likely we will get the money but we will not know until the full Metropolitan Council meets Aug. 24,” Olson said.
“The rail station is looking more and more complete.”
Ramsey will still need to contribute up to $3.6 million toward the project.
[...] Negotiations are under way with the Burlington-Northern Santa Fe Railroad to gain right of way, he [Look] said.
[bolding emphasis added] Longtime Ramsey resident John Engstrom, attending a work session last night, said in the hallway that he dislikes the idea of expanding the ramp to give away parking to the rental project - places in the ramp tax money is purchasing will be reserved where you, a taxpayer, cannot park is roughly how he phrased his viewpoint. He mentioned still partly empty housing in downtown Elk River by the Mississippi, and also some adjourning Elk River's rail stop as in his view a barometer of Ramsey likelihoods, if the ramp-attached rental project ends up being built.
David Flaherty of Flaherty-&-Collins was at last night's worksession. He spoke of a rental project his people are doing in Edina, and what I recollect is they project attaining $1.90 per square foot there and $1.30 per square foot in Ramsey planning; the projection being that with sufficient occupancy in each at such rates they will both prove profitable with debt service costs considered. Beyond that he sald little more about Edina, and I have been able to find nothing online. He mentioned the Orland Park [Chicago ex-urbs] effort of his people, where that municipality intends to bond for the full project cost. Whether the intent there is for the municipality to own it, or to avoid a lending-bonding position behind a first bank lien, remains unclear to me.
As to timing in general, on the three projects, Edina, Ramsey and Orland Park, my understanding from reporting online is that Orland Park already has a built transit hub at their site and intends to build sooner than current Ramsey plans. Status in Edina, as mentioned, is unclear to me. Coborns ownership remains committed to its presence in Ramsey, and is supportive of the Flaherty-&-Collins plans. (And of ongoing Landform efforts to the extent Coborns is privy to any detail.) Coborns had a senior ownership person speak at the meeting, giving a short, general "atta-boy" speech at the meeting's opening.
Discussion opened by Flaherty was about PNC, the Pittsburgh lender on other FC projects, and how that lender was committed to lend $20.4 million on the Ramsey rental project, while insistent it would not want a second lien position attaching for whatever funding Ramsey might provide.
Flaherty discussed alternate security, and the reality is a second lien is not all that great a thing anyway. He said the intent of marketing the Cosmopolitan (a built ongoing highly occupied rental-ramp property in downtown Indianapolis) for purchase or an equity participant for a share of the venture was to raise capital and gain liquidity, and he indicated there was a personal guarantee there. His preference was to not sell but keep that property; i.e., his indication was there was no distress dimension to that marketing.
To the extent I am unsure of security arrangements anticipated for Ramsey I will probably email city officials.
Timing in Ramsey: It appears the council, (at least an existing four vote majority bloc), is prepared to push ahead with the rental. Hence, far more likely than not, it will happen.
Current anticipation is groundbreaking will be spring of 2012, with roughly a year to reach gaining the full occupancy permit; and roughly 9 months before Flaherty anticipated "any people on the ground" to begin marketing rental opportunity. And that the Pittsburgh lender will remain committed to a $20.4 million loan-and-lien. Clearly on that time frame circumstances could alter.
That starting date and timeline means there will be no project track record beyond city spending on an uncertain future, at the time of next November's elections. Mayor Ramsey, the Wise at large seat, the McGlone Ward 2 seat, and Ward 4 will represent a four-vote open contest possibility, so that ongoing Landform status, etc., are uncertain.
It impresses me positively that the council is willing to accept that disadvantageous consequence, the uncertainty going into elections, instead of wanting a more prompt result.
Delaying to when the rail stop is done or substantially built makes more sense, in terms of maximizing occupancy likelihoods once construction is completed, and if the project is to be done at all it is best it be done in as favorable a way as feasible in terms of lessening taxpayer-city risk.
Also, with the Orland Park project on a faster timetable (they already have a transit hub built in 2007) and with that municipality looking to fully fund the TOD rental-ramp situation there, Ramsey will have some feedback on a suburban-exurban project vs. the downtown success of Cosmopolitan in a thriving downtown site. Whether any feedback info will exist about the Edina FC effort in spring of 2012 is unknown to me.
 |
| Gated secure parking - Indianapolis |
That is mentioned because of the offensiveness of the county hall ramp, where everything except the top weather-exposed level are "reserved" parking slots for employees of the owner of the thing, that owner being county taxpayer-citizens who have to park and scrape in the winter and enter hot vehicles in the hottest summer, while those employed with taxpayer money have more amenable parking.
____________UPDATE_____________
Can anyone tell me what the language highlighted above in Sakry reporting means, “subject to the city entering into a transit taxing district.” For sure, I know it does not mean "no strings attached." And this is the Met Council so it is really disturbing language.
Throwing a snake on the table, hoping it will go unnoticed?
It surely sounds precisely like "Port Authority" to me, despite word play nuances that might possibly ensue.
What's up??????????
If it means what I think it means, I would rather see the city tell Met Council, "Keep your ten percent," with the city carrying that cost if necessary. That would be more desirable than a Port Authority, atop an EDA, atop an HRA, atop a city, all lusting to spend.
Notice that "Port Authority" is conspicuously absent in the subd. 2 definition of "municipality" per the protective language of Minn. Stat. Sect. 471.831 "MUNICIPALITY MAY FILE BANKRUPTCY PETITION." Also, I do not see "transit taxing district" in that protective "municipality" statutory list, and downside anticipations always are wise with a city spending in the ways of Ramsey.
Again, what's up????????
_______________FURTHER UPDATE_______________
Port Authority, whatever, "transit taxing district" contains one clear operative word, it being "taxing."
This is a GOP council where there has been much past chest-pounding about not raising taxes.
This is a new imposed tax, isn't it? A wholly new hummer, not ever there before?
Done by a pack of self-proclaimed "fiscal conservatives." I always believed the term "fiscal conservatives" meant more than firing some city staff people.
I guess I was misled in my beliefs.