1987-03-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes March 24, 1987 Locke clarified the current development agreement is in default; if they execute the current amendment, they would still be in default. The current proposal is they be given until April 15, 1987, to correct the event of default and to change the date in the amendment of the agreement so when they execute the agreement they would no longer be in default. Benke asked for confirmation that council had already approved the change in partnership arrangement; Locke indicated the current make-up of Park Place Senior Housing Partnership is the same as it was in November of 1986. In accordance with Brandt's request, Locke will provide to coun- cilmembers copies of resolutions, the amendment, and discussion regarding the agreement for this project. Motion by Schmidt, seconded by Gunderman, to GIVE THE PARK PLACE SENIOR HOUSING lIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNTIL APRIL 15, 1987, TO EXE- CUTE THE NOVEMBER 25, 1986, AMENDMENT TO THE PARK PLACE SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND TO AMEND THE CONTRACT TO STATE THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT MUST COMMENCE NO LATER THAN JUNE 1, 1987. 4 Ayes - 1 Naye (Brandt), Motion Carried Locke briefly summarized the staff report concerning the proposed resolution authorizing quick take authority on Tax Increment Financing District No. 6 property, the approval of which would give the city developable size parcels on the north portion of the redevelopment area, and explained the Quick Take action assures the city it would get that property in time to allow development this year. Schmidt asked for clarification that the city is not obligated to purchase the property; and, if we proceed with the Quick Take action, we can take the property at a price not yet determined and will negotiate with the developer as to what they will pay for the property or what the city will be paying. Locke indicated it is difficult to know what price the city will pay when it goes through condemnation proceedings but, if the value was higher than we wanted to pay, we could simply cancel the proceedings. However, under the quick take proceedings we cannot cancel. In this case we are talking about the development of a project which, without this land, will be very limited. On that basis, Locke stressed the need to pursue a quick take proceeding. Page 9 Quick Take Pro- ceedings, Tax Increment Dis- trict No. 6 Report 87-84 Resolution 87-33