1986-10-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes October 14, 1986 Council Business, continued Senden stated there must be an Assessment Agreement for Phase II and a determination needs to be made for the size of that second building which he feels would require council approval. Williams asked if the Addendum could specify additional council review; Locke indicated that including the Phase II information in the Development Agreement would streamline the process so that no further council approval would be required as was done for the Winfield development and the Rush Lake Business Park. Send en asked why he should go ahead without a commitment from the City; Williams asked if Ed Taylor, Rush Lake Business Park, would be coming back for any kind of approvals; Locke stated he would not because there was more specificity in that Agreement and all of the numbers were crunched when the city signed the document. Schmidt stated his proposed course of action is for Send en to indicate to his financing facility that the city is interested in facilitating the project, and he is sympathetic in terms of the delay to Senden that may be caused by no mistake other than the fact there was a breakdown in communications (between the developer, staff, and legal counsel, and whoever else may be involved), and at this time the only thing that he would be comfortable with is to take action to approve the document as it is and direct staff to get the amendment prepared and back to council for further detail of the language necessary so Senden and the city knows where they stand for Phase II rather than just a paragraph. Senden stated he would withdraw his request for the additional paragraph. Motion by Benke, seconded by Williams, to CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON, MINNESOTA, AND JAMES SENDEN, AND AN ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT AND ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATION BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON, MINNESOTA, AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE FINAL DOCUMENTS FOR COUNCIL ACTION. 4 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried Benke asked Sinda to set up a meeting with Jim Casserly, Miller & Schroeder; Jim O'Meara, O'Connor & Hannon; Sinda; Locke; and himself prior to the next council meeting. Williams asked what happens to the city if the developer defaults; LeFevere stated the city is required by law to levy an amount to cover debt service, the nature of a General Obligation bond as opposed to a General Revenue Bond. Sinda stated the agreement is written in such a way as to protect the city. Page Sixteen