Laserfiche WebLink
two properties with Case No. 14, this case is requesting that the City initiate the process and <br />makc thc funds available in a couple of weeks, which should be contingent on the release of the <br />restrictive covenant. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec questioned if RTC, LLC did .not have the funds to pay their contract with <br />Rehbcin, and if they need the sale of this building to pay those funds. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman replied he cannot answer that question. He was asked if the City <br />could come up with the cash by September 20th and he said he would take the request to the <br />Council if the bank would be willing to release the restrictive covenant. <br /> <br />Councihnember Elvig noted the letter received from the bank states that they would be willing to <br />release the restrictive covenant based on two conditions. One condition is that they sell their <br />parcel tbr a good price, which the City has nothing to do with. The other condition is that the <br />City completes the funding. He questioned if the bank is dictating how RTC, LLC is run, as he <br />thought the City was working with RTC, LLC. He stated he has always been opposed to this <br />restrictive covenant, which handcuffs Town Center. He knows of two banks that would like to <br />move into Town Center, but Community National Bank is holding the sale on those properties. <br />The bank is now stating that the City has to buy out someone's property to get this to work. He <br />docs not agree with any of this and does not want anything to do with banking a bank. He does <br />not want to move forward on this until the Council has a clear understanding of this situation. <br /> <br />Councihncmber Jeffrey asked if RTC, LLC has given the bank authorization to negotiate on their <br />behalf on these parcels, otherwise the City should be dealing with RTC, LLC on. the sale and <br />purchase of these properties. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich advised the City should only be focused on the acquisition and official <br />mapping related to this process. It is not the City's concern what RTC, LLC does with their <br />ll-lOllCy. <br /> <br />Councihnember Cook stated the City brought the bank into this by requesting part of the sales be <br />involved with the elimination of the covenant, and the bank then made their request. Secondly, it <br />is none or the City's business if RTC, LLC has enough money. What the Council should <br />consider tonight is whether this property should be purchased, and' if so how to go about <br />purchasing it. <br /> <br />Councihncmber Strommen stated the issue is that RTC, LLC wants the full value for both <br />properties by September 30th. The City cannot process both properties by September 30th, and <br />RTC, LLC will need to determine where to obtain the rest of the cash they need by September <br />3(?'. Beyond that the details are not really the City's business. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook recommended that the City pursue both pathways for this one property, <br />also proceeding with the RALF funding they have already applied for. They can then dec. ide as a <br />City if it would be better to own the property under RALF funds or under City bonding. <br /> <br />City Council / September 13, 2005 <br /> Page 25 of 33 <br /> <br />P69 <br /> <br /> <br />