Laserfiche WebLink
scheduled as a result of M&S's request; don't feel it is appropriate to delay <br />their case any longer. <br /> <br />Councilm~rbers Sorteberg and Schlueter agreed with Council~e~bers Cox and <br />Reiwann. <br /> <br />Mayor Hei~an stated that it is known frc~ the policy work session conducted <br />that the 'but for' question will be an integral part of the tax incr~rent plan; <br />does M&S's project hinge on the City's involvement? <br /> <br />Lyle McLaughlin - Stated he is present representing Leonard McLaughlin and that <br />there is no question that the developer could not proceed without the City's <br />involvement because of all the restrictions and requirements ~NR is enforcing <br />on this particular project; the developer is not about to proceed without the <br />City' s assistance. <br /> <br />Mayor Heit~an stated that he finds it hard to believe that a $900,000+ project <br />will be held up by $64,000 but he will accept it as the developer's statement. <br /> <br />Mayor Heit~an inquired if it isn't too late to proceed with the earthwork <br />proposed considering the lateness of the construction season and the current <br />climate conditions. <br /> <br />Mr. Rick Foster replied that the sandy soils are not affected by the rainfall <br />and the work can be c(~rpleted during this construction season, but the season <br />is like sand through an hour-glass. Mr. Foster stated that in his opinion the <br />project cannot be held together until the next construction season. <br /> <br />Mr. McLaughlin stated that the River's Bend Project proceeded on the basis that <br />the Rut River Bridge and associated develo~rent would come to that area; the <br />developer cannot represent that bridge any further than it has proceeded. <br />developer sees that fostering develot~rent will be the key to meeting <br />assessments but three developers have not purchased the property because the <br />bridge is not there. ~e developers need all the City assistance they can get <br />to wake sure that sewer and water connection is going to succeed; we either <br />have to get that bridge through or get City assistance. <br /> <br />CouncilFember Cox inquired about fencing. <br /> <br />Mr. McLaughlin stated that a new requirement for fencing a~ounts to an <br />additional $18,000 and is requesting that the fencing qualify for public <br />benefit in addition to the $64,500. <br /> <br />Mr. Foster stated that it is his understanding that fencing would be installed <br />on the south, west and north lines of the project area. <br /> <br />Council~ember Cox noted that residents to the south are only requesting that <br />the ponding and play area along Hwy. #47 be fenced. <br /> <br />Mayor Heihran suggested the City participate in the cost of fencing the <br />ponding area because that is an ordinance requirement; the developer would have <br />the option to fence the play area at his expense. <br /> <br />October 15, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />