03-08-1999 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

UNAPpRgvEn the intersection is being built. We as the Council and the City would like to keep as much as traffic down to County Road H. 2 as possible, and the best way doing that is being able to have access to Highway 10. Mr. Smith would like to reaffirm our approving of this particular design. Mr. Whiting stated a project like this goes through various approval stages to determine the costs. Mr. Stigney stated a legal question. There are three Council members here voting this evening. Mr. Stigney has not supported in the past this realignment of Edgewood Drive or the traffic light, because I did not like the cost spaces of sharing of what the developer is paying and versus what the City is paying. As I understand it, the traffic light,the developer is going to pay approximately '/4 of the cost, and the City is going to pick up 3/4 of the cost, through MSA funding out of the pool, to complete realignment of Edgewood Drive. We not talked about ponding issues yet, which may exceed that. Mr. Stigney's questions what legal obligations do I as a Council member have to go for something that I don't support because the previous Council has brought us to this point where it requires some action. Mr. Long reminded the Council in your charter that you actually have a requirement, you have to have a minimum of three votes to pass any motion. Mr. Long stated the issue of what legal issues would be presented if this new Council decided to change course,and not go forward with the signal, Mr. Long stated if this current Council had to go back to look at, rechange things done by the previous Council, there is case law ow out there that suggests that under those circumstances if a prior Council enters into this case a PED that sets up a development scheme, and the developer relies on that goes forward and spends dollars,that a later change by the City Council in that document that might in some way jeopardize the project, can create legal risks and exposure to the City. If there is litigation over that, it is a very risky thing. Cities have loss under those circumstances. That is the argument that will be made by the developers,that an action was taken, an agreement was put together, and money was expended on reliance of that and if that change detrimentally affects the development, then the cost of damages can be sought against the City. That has happened in a number of cases where cities have lost those cases. Mr.Long stated there is a fairly good risk on that issue. Mr. Stigney questioned the established cost sharing that is presently per the development agreement, or some agreement with the developer, and the cost sharing basis be asked to be changed at all. Mr. Jopke stated it is in the form after development agreement which the City has signed. Mr. Stigney questioned the point of uncomfortableness with this project, if voted against, or ask for a delay until our next Council meeting, is this going to put anything in jeopardy as far as legal risk. Mr. Long stated he is not sure about the timing of the issues, but if there is some issue relating to when this has to go in order to be approved,the question becomes one of whether or not the delay is unreasonable and is causes detriment to the development project, i.e., starting date, calculate the loss of revenue from that,that could possibly create some risk. That would not be the same issue 9C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\2-22-99.CC