My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2003-10-22 CC Packet
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1996-2022
>
2003
>
2003-10-22 CC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2006 2:55:43 PM
Creation date
2/9/2006 3:38:44 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
105
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />City of Centerville <br />October 8, 2003 <br />COImciI Meeting Minutes <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated the developer felt that what was being assessed for Phase I <br />and/or II was somehow more than what should have been assessed under the estimated <br />costs. He then said that brings back the comment that, if the City does not go through <br />with Phase III, and the developer challenges the City on whether it is obligated he <br />anticipates that the developer will follow through with the dispute on the assessment for <br />phases I and II over some extrapolated number over the $1.8 so there may still be an issue <br />with one and/or two. <br /> <br />Ms. Marty asked what Council did because she heard a public hearing opened. <br /> <br />Mayor Sweeney indicated that the noise ordinance public hearing was opened but no one <br />was present to speak at it so the Pheasant Marsh matter was moved up to accommodate <br />the parties. <br /> <br />Ms. Marty commented that Council looked at this issue that is on the agenda and chose to <br />take no action. City Attorney Hoeft indicated that was correct. <br /> <br />Mr. Runkle from Ground Development and his counsel, Ms. Marty, left the meeting and <br />returned a minute later. Ms. Marty then asked for permission to address Council. <br /> <br />Ms. Marty indicated they would like to request some action one way or another on the -- <br />matter. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated that Council did not have to take any action as this is a <br />negotiation over the development agreement. He then said the agreement, as proposed, is <br />not acceptable to Council and Council has indicated what it wants the developer to do <br />and, until there is a revised development agreement, there is no approval. <br /> <br />Council Member Capra commented that the developer needed to take out the 429 or add <br />the waiver in. <br /> <br />Council Member Capra asked that Ms. Marty and Mr. Hoeft work on the matter. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated he would look at any proposed additional language or <br />would anticipate receiving pleadings. <br /> <br />2. Resolution #03-054 - Water Tower <br /> <br />Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers. seconded by Council Member Lee <br />to approve Resolution #03-054 as presented. All in favor. Motion carried <br />unanimously. ' <br /> <br />Mayor Sweeney indicated that when he met with Sedona Homes they indicated they <br />would work with the City for storage during construction. <br /> <br />Page 10 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.