Minutes - Council - 07/11/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

negotiate down security. Staff worked with the developer reducing the amount of security but at the same time restricting the number of lots that could be built down to the level of security in hand. City Council only allowed for construction on 30-50 lots until such time security was sufficient to allow for continuation of the phase. Councilmember Zimmerman inquired if this has been done subsequently. Mr. Schroeder replied that this same method has been available to every developer since that time period, but he defers to the Finance Officer to approve the security instrument. Mr. Goodrich affirmed that the City has taken a variety of financial guarantees from various developers. Mr. Schroeder stated that because of this development, Council discussed allowing the City to receive other forms of credit. In those negotiations, to Mr. Schroeder's knowledge, the Staff did not discuss financial guarantees with Glen Hardin, they discussed the financial issue with the Council as a whole. Mr. Goodrich stated Glen Hardin was sworn to uphold the City Charter and constitution, and he feels Mr. Hardin's response to his informal investigation was adequate. He stated that Northeast State Bank was designated as one of the City's seven depositories in 1992; the vote was four in favor and Glen Hardin abstained. He added that Glen Hardin abstained in the voting on designated depositories three of the last four years. He did not abstain in 1994, the year Investment Centers Inc., which rents space from Northeast State Bank, was listed. Mr. Goodrich noted that the City has never had a depository relationship with Northeast State Bank. He went on to advise that there is an exception in State Statute that states if an officer declares said conflict of interest, then the depository may be used. Mr. Goodrich stated he will explore if Hardin's abstentions satisfy that statute. He also added that it is only if the mayor has an interest in the bank, if he has financial gain, then there is conflict. Mr. Goodrich referenced Mr. Hendriksen's memorandum dated May 23, 1995 (attached as Exhibit D) regarding a request for information and Mr. Goodrich's response to such in a letter of May 3, 1995 (attached as Exhibit E), and Mr. Goodrich affirmed that he endeavors to maintain confidences of all councilmembers, each of them as a whole are his clients and he will maintain any confidences that occur. Mr. Goodrich stated he feels that "Mr. Hendriksen is asking the mayor to disprove something, and that puts anyone in a difficult position." Mr. Goodrich concluded that he will have a final memo on the depository issue forthcoming. Mr. Hendriksen agreed that clearly (~99n Creek is the landmark case. However, he feels the point is that documentation is being withheld. Mr. Goodrich remarked that he told Mr. Hendriksen there wasn't any documentation (see Exhibit E). Mr. Hendriksen related that he asked Mr. Goodrich for the substance of his conversation with Mr. Hardin and was told that such was attorney-client privilege. Mr. Hendriksen felt that the documentation used to form Mr. Goodrich's opinion consisted of his conversation with Mr. Hardin, and objected that the substance of such conversation is not public. Mr. Goodrich replied that, as he has repeatedly told Mr. Hendriksen, he did not have any documentation. Everything discussed was contained in the memorandum (Exhibit C). Mr. Hendriksen inquired whether Mr. Goodrich's opinion would be different if Mr. Hardin received an enormous bonus for approving Amber Ridge. City Council/July 11, 1995 Page 9 of 13