Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City of Centerville <br />October 8, 2003 <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br /> <br />Mr. Runkle indicated he was concerned with the language added on the top of Page 6 <br />where it says the developer will construct concrete sidewalk on the north and west side of <br />Dupre as the feasibility study for the street and utility improvements included the <br />sidewalk and that will be done at the same time. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft suggested amending the language to state that the sidewalk comes <br />under the street and utility improvement by indicating the developer hereby requests the <br />City construct a concrete sidewalk. He then indicated that he would work out the <br />language and provide it to the developer. <br /> <br />Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated that the Parks and Recreation Committee had asked for <br />language in the developer's agreement to ensure that the sidewalk and trailways were <br />constructed. <br /> <br />Ms. Karen Marty indicated she had nothing new to say with regard to the waiver. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers asked if the developer was willing to sign a new <br />Waiver. <br /> <br />Ms. Karen Marty indicated the developer is not willing to sign a new waiver. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers asked for the options from the City Attorney. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated the City could proceed without a waiver, make the <br />assessment and wait to see if the amounts over the waiver will be contested. He then said <br />there is a cost to defend a contested assessment but he feels the developer's agreement <br />obligates the developer to pay for those costs. He further commented that, other than for <br />entertainment value, he does not know why the developer would challenge the <br />assessments because he feels that the benefit can easily be proven. <br /> <br />Council Member Capra indicated that Ms. Marty had stated that there was an original <br />waiver in the original agreement and that is why they do not want to waiver this <br />agreement. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated the developer says the City approved the development plan <br />for all construction and waived up to $1.8 million so that is what they are obligated to so <br />the question is whether the City is obligated to do the 429 process on this portion of the <br />land and he is not convinced that the City is. He then indicated that the City has given <br />independent approval by this body for each phase and just because it is indicated in the <br />initial agreement that the City would proceed with the 429 process with a waiver of X <br />number of dollars does not commit the City to going forward with 429 process. He <br />further commented that the interesting question is if the City does not go forward with <br />429 process for the fmal phase and waiver of $1.8 million he would anticipate that the <br />developer would say that the $1.8 million was for a three phase project and try to factor <br /> <br />Page 7 of14 <br />