The information below is taken directly from the report that was presented at the GGS committee this morning and I added the motions from the most recent council meeting that sent the issue back to the committee agenda today. My comments are in italics.
The following is a chronology of Council decisions regarding Plan 1410AC, Block 5, Lots 33-36 (the legal description of the former Germain Park) Inclusive:
July 2, 2002 – Germain Park Land Classification:
MOVED by Alderman Mazer Council classify Germain Park as “marketable” and direct Administration to obtain a “fair” market value appraisal prior to any further decisions being made by Council. CARRIED.
July 4, 2005 – Germaine Park:
Alderman Rice declared a conflict of interest as Manager of the Downtown Association, abstained from discussion and voting and vacated Council Chambers.
Alderman Given declared a conflict of interest as his employer has an interest in the matter, abstained from discussion and voting and vacated Council Chambers.
(At this point I was employed at Hi-Tech Business Systems, across from Germain Park, and the owner had expressed an interest in buying it. As soon as that happened I excused myself from the discussion and motions related to the park and it's sale so that I wouldn't be in a conflict of interest situation.)
MOVED by Alderman Logan Council designate the General Government Services Committee as the Committee to deal with all issues pertaining to Germaine Park.
CARRIED.
August 29, 2005 – Germain Park RFP-16-200-05:
Alderman Rice declared a conflict of interest on Items #9.4.1 and #9.4.2, as Manager of the Downtown Association, abstained from discussion and voting and vacated Council Chambers.
Alderman Given declared a conflict of interest on Items #9.4.1 and #9.4.2, as his employer has an interest in the matter, abstained from discussion and voting and vacated Council Chambers.
MOVED by Alderman Mazer Council reject all proposals submitted for RFP-16-200-05 for the Sale of Germain Park and any deposits provided be returned accordingly.
CARRIED.
November 21, 2005 – Agreement with the Devonian Foundation re: Germain Park:
Alderman Given declared a conflict of interest as his employer has taken a position on this matter, abstained from discussion and voting and vacated Council Chambers.
MOVED by Alderman Mazer Council approve the Agreement between the City and the Devonian Foundation regarding Germain Park, as presented.
CARRIED.
August 28, 2006 – Downtown Land (Former Germain Park):
MOVED by Alderman Mazer Council direct Administration to offer the property, formerly known as Germain Park, for sale using a Request for Proposal process, with final acceptance subject to Council approval. CARRIED.
(I finished working at Hi-Tech in December of 2005 when I ran in the federal election and so from here on out I was free to be involved in the decisions with out being in a conflict of interest.)
February 26, 2007 – RFP-10-200-06 – Former Germain Park Parcels:
MOVED by Alderman Mazer Council reject all proposals submitted for RFP-10-200-06 for the Downtown Development Opportunity of Downtown Lands (former Germain Park).
CARRIED.
June 30, 2008 – Former Germaine Park Parcels Development Options:
MOVED by Alderman Given Council approve marketing the former Germaine Park parcels for sale and:
1. direct Administration obtain a certified appraisal of Lots 33, 34, 35 and 36, Block 5, Plan 1410AC,
2. set the sale price at fair market value,
3. retain the services of a local realtor who specializes in commercial properties, and further,
4. approve that the City enter into an acceptable offer to purchase, containing legal counsel’s recommendation of an appropriate covenant for timelines for development with all proceeds less appraisal, advertising, legal fees and negotiated realtor commission to be added to the Land Reserve.
CARRIED.
February 26, 2007 – RFP-10-200-06 – Former Germain Park Parcels:
MOVED by Alderman Mazer Council reject all proposals submitted for RFP-10-200-06 for the Downtown Development Opportunity of Downtown Lands (former Germain Park).
CARRIED.
June 30, 2008 – Former Germaine Park Parcels Development Options:
MOVED by Alderman Given Council approve marketing the former Germaine Park parcels for sale and:
1. direct Administration obtain a certified appraisal of Lots 33, 34, 35 and 36, Block 5, Plan 1410AC,
2. set the sale price at fair market value,
3. retain the services of a local realtor who specializes in commercial properties, and further,
4. approve that the City enter into an acceptable offer to purchase, containing legal counsel’s recommendation of an appropriate covenant for timelines for development with all proceeds less appraisal, advertising, legal fees and negotiated realtor commission to be added to the Land Reserve.
CARRIED.
This motion above is where I think things started to go sideways. Both council and city staff mishandled the issue at this point and unfortunately I'm the one that made the motion. The mistake on council's behalf (that I, or at least one of us, should have caught) was that point number 4.
When we asked for "legal council's recommendation of an appropriate covenant for timelines for development..." we weren't clear enough. We should have asked for those recommendations to come back to council for approval BEFORE the property was ever listed with a real estate agent. As it turned out the city solicitor recommended that the buyer should have to agree to getting a development permit within 5 years and completing construction within 2 years after that. The problem is that council never actually saw those conditions before the property was listed - if we had we would have had a chance to correct them into something that would have seen development happen sooner. I know I would have fought for that anyhow - what's the point of selling it only to have the risk of someone buying it and NOT do anything with it for 5 years?
The second and probably smaller, problem that happened was that the property didn't actually get listed until January of 2009 - 7 months after council passed the motion above. In the meeting in June we were told that the appraisal on the land would be approximately $295,000. When finally listed for sale in January the appraisal at that time showed the property dropping in value to $195,000 and council was never made aware of that before the property was listed. I'm still not sure why there was a 7 month delay in getting the property up for sale.
April 6, 2009 – Offer to Purchase Proposal (Former Germain Park):
MOVED by Alderman Minhas Council:
1. approve to enter into the Commercial Real Estate Purchase Contract as submitted by Select Do-All Maintenance Ltd. to purchase Plan 1410AC, Block 5, Lots 33-36 inclusive, for the amount of $195,000 which contains legal counsel’s recommendation of an appropriate covenant for timelines for development, and,
2. approve all sale proceeds less legal fees, previously negotiated realtor commission and costs to prepare the Real Property Report and Phase 1, Environmental Site Assessments be added to the Land Reserve. MOTION DEFEATED.
April 6, 2009 – Offer to Purchase Proposal (Former Germain Park):
MOVED by Alderman Minhas Council:
1. approve to enter into the Commercial Real Estate Purchase Contract as submitted by Select Do-All Maintenance Ltd. to purchase Plan 1410AC, Block 5, Lots 33-36 inclusive, for the amount of $195,000 which contains legal counsel’s recommendation of an appropriate covenant for timelines for development, and,
2. approve all sale proceeds less legal fees, previously negotiated realtor commission and costs to prepare the Real Property Report and Phase 1, Environmental Site Assessments be added to the Land Reserve. MOTION DEFEATED.
This is where council saw the terms and conditions of the sale including the 5/7 year timeline and the price. At this point we had an offer that met the full price we were asking for and it was now up to council to sign off and agree to sell the property. The only way council can officially do anything is to pass an official motion in a public meeting - think of that motion as council's signature on a contract.
There were only 8 of us at this meeting and the vote was a 4 to 4 tie which is the same result as a 9 to 1 vote against - the motion was defeated. Council declined to sign off on the sale.
June 3, 2009 GGS meeting, the Committee:
MOVED by Mayor Logan the Committee:
Receive the correspondence from the Grande Prairie & District Chamber of Commerce, concerning Germaine Park, for information and supply to the Grande Prairie & District Chamber of Commerce the City’s existing policy and the information that the current listing expires June 11, 2009.
CARRIED.
MOVED by Mayor Logan the Committee:
Direct administration prepare a report outlining options for Germaine Park, including but not limited to, extension of the listing for sale, a new listing for sale with amended conditions, reverting development proposals and returning ownership and maintenance of land, assuming that there is no offer before the expiry date.
CARRIED.
September 21st, 2009 City Council - Former Germain Park Property Status
MOVED by Alderman Minhas Council direct Administration declare that Plan 1410AC. Block 5, Lots 33-36 inclusive, (former Germain Park) be defined as non-marketable.
MOTION DEFEATED. 1-7
For: Alderman Given
Opposed: Mayor Logan, Aldermen Blackmore, Deimert, Gustafson, Minhas, Radbourne and Wong
MOVED by Alderman Radbourne Council reaffirm the former Germain Park as marketable.
CARRIED. 7-1
For: Mayor Logan, Aldermen Blackmore, Deimert, Gustafson, Minhas, Radbourne and Wong
Opposed: Alderman Given
MOVED by Alderman Radbourne Council direct Administration to bring forward a report to the General Government Services Committee outlining marketing methods and conditions for sale of the former Germain Park property.
CARRIED.
MOVED by Alderman Minhas Council direct Administration research the option of development of a parking lot located at Plan 1410AC. Block 5, Lots 33-36 inclusive, (former Germain Park), and provide a report at a future Committee.
MOTION DEFEATED. 4-4
For: Mayor Logan, Aldermen Deimert, Given and Gustafson Opposed: Aldermen Blackmore, Minhas, Radbourne and Wong
No comments:
Post a Comment