Resolution 5316 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 22,1999 PAGE 9 pay approximately 1/4 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 have not talked about ponding issues yet, which may exceed that. Mr. Stigney's questions what legal obligations he has as a Council member to vote for something that he does not support because the previous Council has brought us to this point where it requires some action. Mr. Long reminded the Council that the Charter require 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 now out there that suggests that under those circumstances if a prior Council enters into this case a PUD 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 S 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 as if he changed the agreement, but the question of how long a delay before it becomes unreasonable is the factual question. If you were thinking of doing that, or if you don't think you have three votes tonight to pass it, then you can wait for the next Council meeting for additional information would not be unreasonable, but I don't know of the timing of the MNDOT specifications process. Mayor Coughlin stated now is not the time at this point in the game to start standing on principle. Mayor Coughlin stated his respect to the right to stand on principle here. The time involved in this project is fast leaving us. Mayor stated he is in a situation where he is anew Mayor, with most of the decisions made for me up to this point. Mayor Coughlin stated he has to stand on whatever wisdom there was in getting us to this point, and have a theater is going to open, and to put more of the traffic out on Highway 10 faster, or we can dump more of it out on H-2. Mayor Coughlin stated he would