Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Zimmerman inquired as to how they came up with the cost estimates. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich noted that the estimates included in the document were fairly high to <br />assure that the City was covering its costs. <br /> <br />Councihnember Cook stated that he did not think it would be a big issue since the Phase I <br />improvements will start relatively soon after the development agreement is signed. <br /> <br />Assistant Public Works Director Olson replied that the Phase I improvements will begin within <br />the next four to six months. <br /> <br />Counci lmember Elvig stated that in most of the sections there is language included pertaining to <br />the assessment that the developer waives their right to appeal and inquired if that was included in <br />this section as well. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied yes. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated that one of the features pertaining to the assessments that he had <br />been encouraged by is that the assessment will take precedent in front of the bank if the <br />developer were to default. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that that was correct. <br /> <br />Couucihnember Elvig noted that the debt service would be about $2.5 million for the Phase I <br />roadway improvements and he was comfortable that there would be enough development within <br />the site to cover those cots. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman noted that in Section 7.9 Commencement and Completion of the <br />City Phase II Roadway Improvements, there had been a minor issue where the developer was <br />requesting that the language pertaining to the City commencing construction of City Phase II <br />Roadway improvements within 180 days after the Developer's satisfaction on the contingencies <br />described in Section 7.9 be reduced to 90 days. After discussing the issue no change was made. <br /> <br />Assistant Director of Public Works Olson explained that it would take a minimum of 120 days if <br />everything went perfectly and the State did not have a substantial amount of comments on what <br />was being proposed <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman noted that in Section 9.7 Prepayment of Special Assessments for <br />Phase I Public Parking Ramp upon Sale or Transfer, the language only focuses on one ramp, not <br />the three ramps previously discussed. In addition, there had been some discussion in regards to <br />the nulnber of years the escrow will be held, but it was left at 12 years. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich noted that in Section 9.6 Assessment Agreement for Phase I Parking <br />Ramps, language was added removing claims the developer may have in regards to the <br /> <br />City Council Special Meeting/September 16, 2003 <br /> Page 3 of 11 <br /> <br /> <br />