Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Jacobsen indicated the Pulte option may not be available to the City in three years. <br /> <br />Lotter stated staff would go back to APi and discuss a three-year option with the lost TIF payment of <br />$120,000. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strub and Councilmember Jacobsen were interested in offering APi a two-year option versus <br />three years. <br /> <br />Gundlach commented she was willing to discuss the three year/$120,000 option with APi and would report <br />back to the City Council. She stated she could ask what APi was willing to pay if these terms were not <br />favorable. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strub asked if MWF would consider a mixed-use development on this parcel. Gundlach <br />understood this would be a great amenity for NBE, however she did not believe this would be an option. <br /> <br />The consensus of the Council was to direct staff to speak with APi to see where they were at and see if a <br />proposal can be reached and brought back to the Council. It was recommended the $120,000 range be <br />discussed by staff. <br /> <br /> <br />Consideration of Council Liaison Assignments <br />Mayor Johnson requested the Council consider the Council liaison appointments for Councilmember Bauman. <br />She understood this was a tough topic but believed a conversation was necessary. She provided the Council <br />with a PowerPoint presentation on the actions the Council had taken regarding the odd/even election <br />Ordinance over the past two years. She reported the censorship of Councilmember Bauman had nothing to do <br />with the petition. She then asked for comment from Councilmember Bauman on why she should be reinstated <br />as a Council liaison. <br /> <br />Councilmember Bauman believed she should have never been censured in the first place. She understood the <br />City Attorney worked for the entire City Council and she simply asked one question. She asked how the <br />question she asked was for personal use. <br /> <br />Mayor Johnson explained no other member of the Council chose to go outside of the box and start a petition. <br />Therefore, the discussion between Councilmember Bauman and the City Attorney was for personal reasons <br />and had nothing to do with City business. <br /> <br />Councilmember Bauman stated she had not contacted the City Attorney for personal gain. She explained she <br />was pursuing the petition because she believed the City had acted unlawfully, but understood this was up for <br />interpretation. For this reason, she brought a question to the City Attorney. She has been told by many <br />Councilmembers that the City Attorney is at their disposal when they need a question answered and these <br />questions do not have to go through the City Council or the City Manager. <br /> <br />Mayor Johnson requested Councilmember Bauman bring the conversation back to why she should be <br />reinstated as a Council Liaison. <br /> <br />Councilmember Bauman believed the action against her should never have been taken in the first place. She <br />stated she was a dedicated member of the Council and contributed. She noted that she has never received a <br />complaint from any of the groups she has sat in on. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strub didn’t disagree with this and supported this issue being resolved. In addition, he wanted