Laserfiche WebLink
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the net proceeds would be $430,000 minus the $51,000 in <br /> development attorney costs and additional staff time costs. <br /> Sara Edstrom Smith, Briggs & Morgan, stated that a basic lawsuit would not be that costly and <br /> would not take that much staff time but the unknown would be the response of McDonald's. She <br /> stated that you could choose to start action to get their attention and then negotiate. She stated <br /> that McDonald's has stated that they are still interested but are awaiting market demands and <br /> therefore it is unknown when they will actually desire to move forward. <br /> Mayor Strommen noted that there have been several extensions on the development of the <br /> property. <br /> Ms. Edstrom Smith stated that she does not believe that McDonald's has nefarious intentions but <br /> simply does not know when they will move forward. She stated that a settlement could provide a <br /> variety of results. She stated that she would not recommend a straight extension as it does not <br /> seem that McDonald's knows when they want to develop. She stated that there is cost to file suit <br /> and the City would want to think whether they have a buyer for the property if they do obtain the <br /> property back. <br /> Councilmember Kuzma asked the cost of a potential lawsuit for the City and what a reasonable <br /> outcome would be. <br /> Ms. Edstrom Smith stated that she could develop a litigation budget but estimated the cost above <br /> $50,000. She stated that it would be hard to guess the end result, whether McDonald's would <br /> want compensation for the property. She stated that it is unknown whether McDonald's believes <br /> that this will be a desirable site in the future and that is why they are holding on. <br /> Councilmember Riley stated that the restrictive covenants have been removed, the City has <br /> gotten the escrow back, there is not a buyer for the site and the City has up to six years to make <br /> this decision. He stated that therefore he would not recommend trying to take the land back as <br /> the City already has a surplus of land. <br /> Councilmember LeTourneau stated that although he agrees with Councilmember Riley that the <br /> City does not need more City owned land. He stated that if there was a buyer for the property, at <br /> least the City would have access to it, and the City could in essence sell the property again. <br /> Councilmember Williams stated that she disagrees with the last two comments. She stated that <br /> this is a valuable property and perhaps the most valuable property in The COR. She stated that if <br /> McDonald's is unable, or unwilling, to develop the property the City should pursue getting that <br /> property back as she believes that it has a great development opportunity which is why <br /> McDonald's has sat on the property. She stated that there was a development agreement which <br /> specified that McDonald's must build by a set date, which has been extended multiple times. <br /> Councilmember Kuzma stated that he is done waiting for McDonald's. He stated that he is <br /> willing to negotiate but either McDonald's will build or they will lose the property. <br /> City Council Work Session /March 28, 2017 <br /> Page 2 of 6 <br />