Stadium Parking Ramp Development Site - 25 stories / 294'

[TroyGBiv]

The development rights were awarded... that is a legally binding agreement. It has "reasonable and justifiable" extension clauses built in... This is very standard in municipalities granting development rights. City or County property has many checks and balances built in to ensure that the taxpayers are protected, that favoritism or cronyism is not at play and that there is an understanding that the developer is investing money and good faith in a project. That "understanding" also provides for extensions to be granted to allow the developer to secure financing, development partners, to adjust for changes in the economy that impact the original proposal. The city or county has legal recourse... but that means bringing in the court or mediators. This can drag a project out for years and usually ends up with no development. (Search LSGI Minneapolis 1980s for a great example of how the shit can hit the fan and drag on for two decades and the enormous 100 million dollar lawsuit that was one by the developer)... It is just not a simple situation or process and can't be changed quickly.

[VikingFaninMaryland]

The development rights were awarded... that is a legally binding agreement. It has "reasonable and justifiable" extension clauses built in... This is very standard in municipalities granting development rights. City or County property has many checks and balances built in to ensure that the taxpayers are protected, that favoritism or cronyism is not at play and that there is an understanding that the developer is investing money and good faith in a project. That "understanding" also provides for extensions to be granted to allow the developer to secure financing, development partners, to adjust for changes in the economy that impact the original proposal. The city or county has legal recourse... but that means bringing in the court or mediators. This can drag a project out for years and usually ends up with no development. (Search LSGI Minneapolis 1980s for a great example of how the shit can hit the fan and drag on for two decades and the enormous 100 million dollar lawsuit that was one by the developer)... It is just not a simple situation or process and can't be changed quickly.

Even Frey notes in past StarTribune, F & C and BizJournal articles that the City has options. Ryan was awarded development rights contingent upon meeting certain milestones on dates certain that they expressly failed to meet. Rights were granted in the context of certain revenue streams that proved to be unsupportable ($5.6 million down to $3 million) without any indicator of an actual project in the pipeline (even some on this list favorable to Ryan note that their contacts at Ryan say they have nothing). If you go back to the articles in the 2014/15 timeframe, you will see that there was great emphasis on moving the project along quickly in time for the opening of the stadium or at least in time for the Super Bowl. In fact, one reason for NOT rebidding the air-rights was so that time would not be lost based expressly on desires to move the project along on a timely basis - as was reflected in the granting of those development rights.

While there is certainly the issue of addressing Ryan's capital investment in the ramp along with the legal and administrative requirements associated with opening to rebid, the actual decision to re-open is simple and could be made quickly. It is certainly on the table - or should be. Ryan twice missed on periods of performance. If 1) other developers can show they have a development project capable of being implemented and 2) Ryan cannot match that capability, what's the problem?

As of now, taxpayers are not being protected as there is the certainly of lost tax revenue that the City passed on when extending Ryan knowing they did not have a development plan at a time when other developers did. ($8.1 million wrt to the Mortensen / Viking plan) How can this not be a genuine fiduciary concern? "Reasonable and justifiable" can only go so far, especially in lite of both non-performance and diminished performance in the context of competing interests with demonstrated intent to perform where a fiduciary interests in capturing revenue from a property exists.

While I wouldn't argue cronyism, a case can certainly be made for favoritism (or dis-favoratism). It would not take too long to find the articles where City officials noted Ryan's long amicable relationship on past projects as a reason for continuing the relationship. (And who would be the "dis-favored" players in this context?)

LSGI was a case where the City of Minneapolis, specifically Mayor Fraser, violated express terms of an agreement. If memory serves me, the issue had as much to do with whether the City could rely on a form of sovereign immunity to simply void what was otherwise clearly stipulated terms of an agreement. Fraser shot himself in the foot.

[TroyGBiv]

No argument on the the point that Ryan has very likely dropped this from their priority list... And not arguing that Ryan has clearly not developed this with any urgency... Not sure if the details on the full development contract articulates a clear "exit" and agreement "dissolution" milestones. That seems like it is always a gray area in these types of contracts... The LSGI was way more complicated that just violating terms of the agreement... There were dozens of points that shifted beyond the contract or were interpreted differently. Yes, Fraser and the City leadership at that time took steps that ended up in court... But there were things La Society Generale Immobiliere (LSGI) introduced to the development that were far outside the agreement - like closing 9th of tenth streets and forcing the road traffic into a tunnel that the city would be required to pay for, or completely closing off the Nicollet mall and forcing the city to end transit on street level, or closing off the sidewalks at street level forcing people to either walk thru the LSGI mall or walking two or more blocks out of the way because the mall was closed, demanding more city investment for 'add ons' that the city didn't want, public access, right-of-way and on and on... The city lost the original lawsuit and then prevailed on the appeal in a higher court. I think that the city is trying to not get sued again... I do think that the window for developing this lot and won't be appealing to a developer until the stadium opens and everyone gets a read on the impact of the new stadium. There is also many other developments in the works and some of the interest in 'East Town' is slowed because there are still at least a dozen projects proposed in that area at the present. I suspect that there is also an element of how expensive that structure would be in terms of retro fitting the ramp to support the new tower, the additional floors of parking that are required as part of the development rights and the potential foot print for this tower... not unlike the TCF development and their small lot/cost per square foot issue. Also the city had a lot of "ongoing negotiating and issue resolutions" with the Wilfs that might have left a bad taste in their mouth and is not motivating them to negotiate another development deal with the Wilfs.

This is not meant as an argument... it is just such a complex process and any development takes so much time - any
"dark cloud" over a developable lot acts as a repellent to developers and investors...

[VikingFaninMaryland]

No argument on the the point that Ryan has very likely dropped this from their priority list... And not arguing that Ryan has clearly not developed this with any urgency... Not sure if the details on the full development contract articulates a clear "exit" and agreement "dissolution" milestones. That seems like it is always a gray area in these types of contracts... The LSGI was way more complicated that just violating terms of the agreement . . . Also the city had a lot of "ongoing negotiating and issue resolutions" with the Wilfs that might have left a bad taste in their mouth and is not motivating them to negotiate another development deal with the Wilfs.

This is not meant as an argument... it is just such a complex process and any development takes so much time - any
"dark cloud" over a developable lot acts as a repellent to developers and investors...

After the last note, I checked back on the LSGI case as its been some time. The Minnesota Supreme Court opinion is at this link: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-supreme-c ... 27277.html Through most of the litigation, LSGI had the facts and contract on its side. The city won on the technicality that the contract also had language that said the city had final approving authority. The technicality wasn't in the contracting language itself but rather in how it was applied - the technicality being that it was used to get the City of Minneapolis off a huge liability with real issues of specific performance where the feud between the City Council and the Mayor's office was actually at fault (this was pretty much out in the open - I lived in Minneapolis at the time and my father was VP of one of the Twin Cities named development/construction companies).

What was really at issue was that the City Council and the MCDA contracted with LSGI against Mayor Frasers objections. After the city entered into the contract with LSGI sans Fraser, Fraser turned around and went to the key prospective tenants - Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom's - and made derogatory claims with the intent of undermining the agreement that would normally constitute tortious interference with a contractual relationship. I say technicality also because there were a lot of development companies, and law firms representing development companies, looking at the LSGI case and saying "whoah, not sure what I think about LSGI but they had a bona fide sound contractual relationship in which they were fully performing, if this heads south, what is our exposure if we enter into development relationships with Minnesota (and 8th Circuit) cities?" While it was the disfunction of the City governance that was at fault, it was Fraser who acted in bad faith.

On your point regarding LSGI putting traffic below grade, etc, this is true but it is also true that this was openly discussed prior to the announcement of the plan. LSGI, the City Council, and the MCDA were shooting for true Euro, true pedestrian downtown commerce (Paris not Amsterdam - LOL from an earlier discussion thread). LSGI put real intent and muscle in that effort, note the heavyweight retail tenants they were bringing along. (As memory serves, Dayton's was also quietly but actively pushing back on LSGI.) When the initial plan failed, LSGI returned with a less ambitious plan. LSGI actually fully performed on its end of the agreement. As the Minnesota Supreme Court notes, this activity also made the City liable to local vendors who lost millions in market value. It also put Minneapolis on the suspect list for national / international developers. LSGI was not a high water mark on Minneapolis's reputation in the development world.

I would normally be more agreeable on the question of additional outfitting of the ramp but it was built with the purpose and intent extending air-rights and was functionally built to meet that requirement. It is ready. Also, the air-rights were negotiated with the intent of rapid follow-on development as a stated intent - to be ready for the opening of the stadium - and later for the Super Bowl. With the City sinking in excess of $60 million on the ramp, they had a need to generate revenue from the development resulting from the air rights to help service that debt along with supporting the new park. This was made explicit in the granting of the rights.

While the city certainly has an interest in not being sued, it seems from the reporting on the statements of the actual players, including Councilman Frey, the city structured the agreement with conditional milestones that provide for the recession of the agreement. There is also the risk of litigation for not acting as well.

While its clear that the Wilfs leave a bad taste in the mouth of many, its also clear that they have fully performed to date - even exceeding performance (over $100 million additional for the stadium, contributions to the park, etc) - and that they, and Mortensen, put down a solid offer with an $8 million up front guarantee.

[LakeCharles]

The Wilfs have an impressive online presence.

[twincitizen]

Thread title changed to reflect that the development (if it ever happens) would likely just be the pad site in front of the ramp. The only thing that would possibly be built on top of the ramp would be an additional level of parking and/or amenity deck, though based on previous reportage, those additions may no longer be possible.

[HiawathaGuy]

You'd think with this much passion and interest, someone would reach out to the City, or Council member Frey...
Seems as though many of you have enough time to dig back and look at old lawsuits.

Instead of speculating, find out facts.

[amiller92]

[I’ll stop here and won't delve into the irrational dislike of the Wilfs and how it is costing MPLS $ millions in lost tax revenue where a patch of grass now sits]

Could you just stop it? Or maybe read some of the rest of the threads? Projects stop and go and get delayed all the time, most of which have nothing to do with the Wilf's.

And right now, it looks like the Ryan project isn't going, so the Wilf's might get another shot. If they get it, what will you complain about?

[mattaudio]

Let's also have a moment to remember that the Vikings acting as MSFA put the poison pill into the air rights plans on this site, since they refused to allow access/egress to additional levels of parking on and around Vikings game times.

[Tiller]

I found that last post to be nicely informative, since I had never heard of the LSIG situation before.

Attila's ayy lmao if ya got word filters might as well use them

[VikingFaninMaryland]

Could you just stop it? Or maybe read some of the rest of the threads? Projects stop and go and get delayed all the time, most of which have nothing to do with the Attila's.

And right now, it looks like the Ryan project isn't going, so the Attila's might get another shot. If they get it, what will you complain about?

What's with changing "W*ilfs" to "Attila's"? I didn't do that.

Immature forum mods love to play around with the word filters.

Responding to all at once:

> I don’t work for the Wilfs or the Vikings.

> As an attorney, finding case law is second hand. As almost everything associated with the MSFA, the Stadium, the ramp, the park, and the Well Fargo project are creatures of legislation, the facts start with the statures, codified development plans, zoning regimes, and property rights associated with the project.

> Why stop? If Ryan cannot make a go of the project, the project should be open for rebid. The City is on record as being dependent on the revenues to service debt and pay for the park. If the Vikings / Mortensen have a project ready to go that meets requirements, they should get their shot.

> Poison Pill? The Vikings are not the MSFA. The MSFA is not a sock-puppet for the Vikings. If there is a rational basis to hold otherwise, please do tell. The MSFA is a governing organization created by State legislation and is solely beholden, by statute, to the State of Minnesota. The MSFA was authorized to oversee the construction of a publicly owned 1600-spot ramp for an enumerated statutory purpose - to serve the parking requirements associated with the construction of the stadium. The ramp is the product of state legislation and, as such, is defined, as is its usage, by statute.

Ryan operated on the theory that it could effectively convert hundreds of publicly-owned parking spots to private use to meet the needs of its future private sector tenants. This is not legal and its not a technicality. As Kelm-Helgen said in a September 2014 StarTribune article - http://www.startribune.com/vikings-ryan ... 274556881/ -

• "This is a publicly owned ramp," said authority chairwoman Michele Kelm-Helgen, noting the ramp is being paid for with public debt. "We can't give parking spots to a residential developer or individual apartment residents. It's not legal. Our attorney was very clear that that would never work."

There is simply no reason to call into question Kelm-Helgen's reasoning based on the OBVIOUS legal opinion of the MSFA staff attorney. Regardless of what the Vikings wanted or did not want, neither they nor the MSFA had the legal authority to modify the terms of use of the ramp. A change in the legal status was not an issue to be resolved by legal teams of the interested parties but rather required the State of Minnesota to take legislative action. That the State of Minnesota would enact legislation to allow for the conversion of a public asset to private use without compensation is simply NOT going to happen. The idea that Ryan was the gamed and aggrieved party is bizarre. Ryan messed up all by themselves. There is no basis to substantively argue that the Vikings “poison pilled” them.

From a May 2015 StarTribune article - http://www.startribune.com/developer-ry ... 304748281/ Ryan reported to the MSFA that it was going to pass on plans to put an additional level of parking on the ramp to accommodate its needs.

• “One deadline passed last week. Ryan had until May 15 to notify the city if it intended to build an extra level of parking on top of the MSFA ramp. Ryan chose not to.”

 

Ryan's difficulties are their own. If they can put something together, more power to them. But it appears that they can't at a time where there are players who can. How this gets blamed on the Vikings . . . oh wait, the Wilfs . . .

[Didier]

You'd have to be cold blooded to not appreciate the word filters in that one.

[mattaudio]

Ryan operated on the theory that it could effectively convert hundreds of publicly-owned parking spots to private use to meet the needs of its future private sector tenants.

You've confused and reversed the terms "public" and "private."

As it stands right now, the MSFA ramp is indeed "private," at least on game days. The ramp may have been paid with public dollars (another scandal) and may have these private uses (game-day parking guarantees) legislated, but at the end of the day it's private in use.

Whereas a public ramp would allow for any customer to pay for car storage, and the price of car storage would be bid up to whatever the market would bear. After all, a parking space is fungible. The fact that the operator of this ramp is prohibited from finding the highest and best use on the car storage market is another example of how this ramp is private, not public.

[Nathan]

No, Matt, I think you're confusing open to the public with owned by the public. The target center is owned by the public, but it's not just open to the public, I can't just go shoot hoops whenever I want. That's really busted logic you're standing on.

[Didier]

I think what Matt is saying is that if, in theory, Ryan contracting 100 parking spaces generated more revenue than those 100 spaces would bring in through general public use, then Ryan should be able to contract for them.

If that's the argument, it's an interesting one. The question is whether the public benefits more from increased revenue or more convenience. I'm not sure the answer is as clear as Matt suggests.

[Nathan]

And what public means is that it would take an act of legislation to allow that. It's just a bad way of going about the argument.

[mister.shoes]

Didn't Ryan want to add spaces, not convert existing ones? And the hangup was simply over ingress/egress during events?

[Silophant]

Yep. As if every tenant in the building was intentionally going to try to leave right as a game was letting out.

[twincitizen]

Per this locked MSP Biz Journal story, Ryan has been reworking their plans and plan to reveal exactly what that is "within 60 days":
http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/p ... polis.html

It's a very short article, but if you must, you can find it in the latest print edition at your local library.

[grant1simons2]

17-story office tower now planned for site

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/n ... ml?ana=twt

Probably going to be around 290-300 feet. The Wells Fargo twins are 294 feet at 17 stories.