1985-04-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes April 23, 1985 I Public Hearing, continued Winkels reviewed the history of the proceedings of this Water Ridge project and the documents required by the City, Jerry Svee, developer, reviewed activities of the project since the March 26, 1985, council meeting. Svee advised council that the final draft of the Development Agreement was delivered this evening but that the attorneys had not yet reviewed it. Svee is not able to provide the agreement from his bank but noted that he could put together a complete package, including a Letter of Credit, as requested in a few days indicating that, unfortunately, at this time he was not able to fulfill council's requirements. Harcus asked if the package could be completed by Friday, April 26, 1935, if the council voted to have a special meet- ing on that date. Svee replied that that would give him sufficient time to assemble the package. ' I In response to Schmidt's question, Svee expressed confidence that the package would be complete by Friday, April 26, 1985. In response to Blomquist's question, Winkels advised council that Svee understood very clearly what the City's requirements are and now it is just a question if they can comply with said requirements. I Jim Casserly, Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc., feels the parties are very close but the security issue is vague. The purchase price of the property and how it's going to be paid have been agreed upon, only the composition of the security package is in dispute. Casserly indicated the developers are solvent and capable of doing the project;, the problem is work- ing through the final process. Svee commented the city's requirements are met in the Develop- ment Agreement and that if he does not have the Letter of Credit on April 26th he will withdraw this project. Casserly explained to the council that the City has to turn the property over by a given date before the end of the year; the developer must initiate some kind of a start within 180 days from then and continue to advance the progress; if there are substantial gaps in the progress, the City has the ,right, with l20-day notice, to reclaim the property. There- fore, there is an obligation for on-going progress. After some discussion among councilmembers, Harcus stated the need for a meeting whether or not the project would materialize. Harcus then recapped the proceedings of this project for the residents in attendance and advised them of Page Four Water Ridge Project Report 85-115 7:52pm-8:17pm