Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Marty indicated that the waiver in the developer's contract waived the right to appeal <br />for all three phases. <br /> <br />city Attorney Hoeft indicated that the situation before Council is that the development <br />contract is asking the City to put in improvements under the 429 process and part of the <br />question is if the City chooses not to do that, the developer may have some costs involved <br />in that. He then said that it needs to be worked out how the improvements are put in and <br />who pays for it. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated she did not think that <br />posed a significant financial risk to the developer. <br /> <br /> <br />. g the waiver <br /> <br />Ms. Marty indicated she di <br />and when the bi <br />those bids came <br />that and it does <br />that much high <br /> <br />or all three phases <br />aeveloper was not consulted and <br />d the developer has had no control over <br />per is responsible for accepting a bid that was <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated that if that is the case, the City could <br />withdraw the offer of 429 and the developer could find his own people to do the work. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated that the court would need to make the determination that <br />the assessed amount is equal to the benefit to the property. He then said that looking at <br />the number of lots and having an idea of the sales price he feels there is no significant <br />issue because he feels the City can prove the benefit to the property is there, but there <br />would be costs to do so. <br /> <br />Ms. Marty indicated that they have not.had any involvement in how the numbers came in <br />and to put them in a position of paying for that does not seem right. She then commented <br />that if the City wants to talk: about litigation expenses they could finish out the project <br />and see whether it is worth Ground Development going forward with a challenge for the <br />amount over the $1.8 waiver or we could litigate now over whether or not the City has <br />the contractual obligation to go ahead with the 429. She then said she would rather go on <br />the friendly basis of going forward and seeing if there is a need for further litigation down <br />the road. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated that if the developer is not willing to agree <br />to a waiver she will make a motion to table approval of the agreement to allow time for <br />consideration as to whether the City is interested in sponsoring the development through <br />the 429 process without that waiver. <br /> <br />Motion by Council Member Broussard Vrekers_ seconded by Coun~n Member <br />CaDra to table this matter. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Page 8 of14 <br />