Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City of Centerville <br />October 8, 2003 <br />COIUlcil Meeting Minutes <br /> <br />out the first two phases so the City may have an assessment challenge even if Phase III <br />does not go forward. <br /> <br />Mayor Sweeney indicated that he is nervous due to the comment that Ms. Marty made <br />that the developer was not consulted when the bids came in higher than the estimates. He <br />further commented that makes him feel that if this goes forward and the amounts are over <br />the $1.8 million the developer will contest it and the City is faced with legal costs to <br />defend. <br /> <br />Mayor Sweeney asked what the original date for Phase III was before it was moved up. <br /> <br />Council discussed it and thought that the original date was 2006 but was not sure. <br /> <br />Council Member Capra commented that the City was shorted approximately $130,000 <br />with the first 429 process. She then asked if Ms. Paulseth had the exact figures. <br /> <br />Ms. Paulseth indicated that she has been figuring about $150,000 depending upon interest <br />rates. <br /> <br />Council Member Lee indicated he is not interested in moving forward without the waiver. <br /> <br />Council Member Paar indicated he does not want the City to get stuck again with extra <br />costs to develop the property. He then said he does not understand how they can contest <br />something that they gave the City the authority to do through the 429 process. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers commented that the City did not lose the money <br />because of the waiver issue, it was lost because of the bonding situation and prepayment. <br />She then said that this bond would be set up differently to account for early payoffs. She <br />further commented that the City knows that the costs are going beyond the $1.8 million <br />and it is likely that the developer would contest the amounts over that amount. <br /> <br />Council Member Lee indicated that, based on comments made previously by the <br />developer and counsel, he would assume there will be a challenge. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers asked how the City would deny the 429 process. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated that not approving the developer's agreement would mean <br />the 429 process does not go forward and the developer would have to finance the project <br />differently. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated there would be a different development contract for <br />improvements with escrows required and the developer would need to have its own <br />engineer and own contractors and the work would have to be done to City specifications. <br /> <br />Mayor Sweeney indicated the developer would be responsible to pay for City inspections <br />as well. <br /> <br />Page 8 of 14 <br />