Minutes - Council Work Session - 11/09/2004 - Special

Home

Paragraph No. 1. Paragraph No. 2 with the following change: "...and the City will execute documentation consenting to the release,wv,~v.~.,eQ~t~ q<~ ~t-~ funds currently held in escrow to RTC..." He explained in the discussion this evening it has been determined that the amount of money currently in the escrow account is high because RTC has taken back approximately nine acres of property and they are due that money back. That amount is calculated at approximately $259,000, and the release of funds would be the $836,556.33 less the $259,000. Mr. Bray stated the deed should be recorded and the City will have to execute a document consenting to the release of the funds from the escrow. There are still other parties to the escrow, in this case the nine acres is part of the D. R. Horton escrow. So, along with the conveyance of the nine acres to RTC, D. R. Horton will have to consent to the release of the portion of the escrow that relates to that nine acres. The City will be able to say they consent to the escrow agent releasing the portion of the escrow that relates to that nine acres, but they cannot guarantee that other parties to the escrow agreement will consent. It seems logical they would, but that is not the City's issue to resolve. Mt'. Lasher asked how Mr. Bray sees the timing working. Mt'. Bray replied it should be able to be provided that the City will execute a document attthorizing the release of the escrow funds. If RTC does not get D.R. Horton to agree the City still agrees to do their amount. Mr. Martinson indicated the amount of $259,000 may be a little higher. It will be whatever the prorated portion equals. Mt'. Bray explained the $836,556.33 represents amounts being held under three escrows, one with D.R. Horton, one with NAU, and one with the Charter School. An amount needs to be determined for each party. Mr. Lasher reviewed Paragraph No. 3. Mr. Bray advised it is the City's right to exercise the option to purchase all or any portion of the propcrty described on Exhibit D. The property must be for public uses, which are listed. Councihncmber Elvig noted that the cinema does not have a role in public purpose uses. Mr. Bray replied the list will have to be finalized as part of drafting the final option, and the list will have to be explicit. He does not see a problem in that the cinema is not a public purpose. The City can still acquire land for a cinema and provide the land to a cinema at a written down price pet' dollar as a way of eucouraging that type of development. Councihnember Elvig asked if this would affect any businesses that might be included with the cinema, such as a retail business. City Council Special Work Session/November 9, 2004 Page 2 of 11