Laserfiche WebLink
-2- <br />July 14, 1975 <br />Mayor Johnson explained that after the June 23rd Council meeting, the <br />administrator was instructed to have construction halted. When the staff <br />attempted to effect the work stoppage, the contractors said it could not <br />be done without a court order. A special meeting was held on June 25, 1975, <br />between the City and the developer so that compliance of the items set <br />forth at the Council meeting could be attained. At the meeting solutions <br />were presented and accepted by both City and developer. Council and <br />Rice Creek Watershed accepted the plans. Presumably the developer had <br />accepted the solutions and a contract was submitted to the developer <br />for signature and they did not return the document. The city attorney <br />was directed to draft an ordinance declaring the development a danger to <br />citizen's health, welfare and safety which will authorize the city to <br />take action. <br />Mayor Johnson said the ditch problem solution is progressing slowly because <br />of communciation between the County and the State. <br />Administrator Achen said the County will take care of the County Road I <br />ditch after the Highway 10 ditch is completed so that the proper grades can <br />be met. The culvert by Bridgeman's has to be lowered. He stated he <br />received a letter from Paster Enterprises noting the Highway 10 ditch poses <br />a problem because the developer feels the city should do Highway 10 ditch <br />as an improvement to the property. He also said the Highway 10 ditch is <br />a key to the solution. The proposed ordinance would allow the city <br />to do the work on the ditches but it would involve spending non - allocated <br />money. He felt it would be more advantageous to both parties if the <br />developer paid for the improvement. He said temporary remedies were made <br />by Paster Enterprises after the July 25th meeting. <br />Attorney Meyers said the letter from Paster Enterprises could be considered <br />as a petition for the city to do the improvement. He said the reason <br />Paster Enterprises may want the improvement done by the city and assessed <br />back to the property is that the lease may have an escalator clause that <br />would put the cost back to the tenant. This assessment would not cover <br />the past costs incurred. <br />Councilman Baumgartner said Paster Enterprises agreed to do items in the <br />agreement and felt the time limit restriction is why they are balking. <br />He feels it is best that they do the work and if it becomes necessary to <br />assess the improvement, it should be assessed only for the period of one <br />year. <br />Councilman Hodges feels the shopping center should bear the improvement. <br />Councilman Shelquist said the ordinance is a useless agreement without the <br />timetable. And, the letter doesn't include all points in the agreement. <br />Councilman Pickar said the letter is an open invitation to assess cost back <br />to the developer. He feels the city should go ahead if necessary to get the <br />work done. The proposed ordinance includes pumping both ponds daily. The <br />letter and the ordinance would equal what the agreement contained. Perhaps <br />licenses should be held from the businesses in the shopping center as leverage <br />to convince the developer that the city is serious. <br />