07-22-2015 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JULY 22, 2015 indicated that then the City should put together a development agreement with Berres outlining the work to be done and the timelines for completion. The City also has to verify whether or not Berres has the financial wherewithal to do the project before any work is started. The City Administrator was concerned about the City's Building Official putting together a workscope and cost estimates. The Administrator felt that work should be done by an independent inspector subject to the City's review. The Administrator felt this evaluation should be Berres' responsibility, not the City's. McGraw agreed. Keis indicated that the Board's consensus is that it would like to see the structure rehabbed, but that a workscope, cost estimates, and development agreement with timelines needs to be developed before the Board acts on the appeal. Keis felt the matter should be continued and this information brought back to the Board at its next meeting. Torkelson stated that he did not want to see the process delayed, and felt that Berres should be able to begin work on the property . Keis disagreed. Montour felt that the Board needed all the information before it should act, including timelines for the rehab project. Montour asked what the City's leverage would be if the work is not completed in the agreed-upon timeline. The City Administrator noted that the property would not receive a Certificate of Occupancy nor a rental license. The Administrator also noted the need to verify that Berres has the funds available to do the work and suggested that it may be necessary to put these funds in escrow. The Administrator acknowledged that Berres has a great incentive to get the structure rehabbed, but indicated that the development agreement should state that if timelines are not met, then Berres' would forfeit his rights to the duplex use. There was additional discussion on the need for an inspection, workscope development, and cost estimates. The Board again asked if Berres had the financial ability to rehab the structure. Berres again indicated that he had $60,000 for the project, but not $80,000. The consensus of the Board was that City staff should work with Mr. Berres to identify an inspector who could develop the workscope and cost estimates. The Administrator was then to put that information, along with project timelines into a development agreement for presentation to the Board. The Administrator noted that this matter is subject to the 60 -Day Rule, and given the Berres appeal letter was received on June 22, 2015, bringing the matter back on August 12th would fall within the required 60 - day review period. If necessary, Berres indicated that he would sign a Waiver of the 60 -Day Rule. 10