HomeMy WebLinkAboutgr00090_000037_pg126-2-
July 14, 1975
Mayor Johnson explained that after the June 23rd Council meeting, the
administrator was instructed to have construction halted. When the staff
attempted to effect the work stoppage, the contractors said it could not
be done without a court order. A special meeting was held on June 25, 1975,
between the City and the developer so that compliance of the items set
forth at the Council meeting could be attained. At the meeting solutions
were presented and accepted by both City and developer. Council and
Rice Creek Watershed accepted the plans. Presumably the developer had
accepted the solutions and a contract was submitted to the developer
for signature and they did not return the document. The city attorney
was directed to draft an ordinance declaring the development a danger to
citizen's health, welfare and safety which will authorize the city to
take action.
Mayor Johnson said the ditch problem solution is progressing slowly because
of communciation between the County and the State.
Administrator Achen said the County will take care of the County Road I
ditch after the Highway 10 ditch is completed so that the proper grades can
be met. The culvert by Bridgeman's has to be lowered. He stated he
received a letter from Paster Enterprises noting the Highway 10 ditch poses
a problem because the developer feels the city should do Highway 10 ditch
as an improvement to the property. He also said the Highway 10 ditch is
a key to the solution. The proposed ordinance would allow the city
to do the work on the ditches but it would involve spending non - allocated
money. He felt it would be more advantageous to both parties if the
developer paid for the improvement. He said temporary remedies were made
by Paster Enterprises after the July 25th meeting.
Attorney Meyers said the letter from Paster Enterprises could be considered
as a petition for the city to do the improvement. He said the reason
Paster Enterprises may want the improvement done by the city and assessed
back to the property is that the lease may have an escalator clause that
would put the cost back to the tenant. This assessment would not cover
the past costs incurred.
Councilman Baumgartner said Paster Enterprises agreed to do items in the
agreement and felt the time limit restriction is why they are balking.
He feels it is best that they do the work and if it becomes necessary to
assess the improvement, it should be assessed only for the period of one
year.
Councilman Hodges feels the shopping center should bear the improvement.
Councilman Shelquist said the ordinance is a useless agreement without the
timetable. And, the letter doesn't include all points in the agreement.
Councilman Pickar said the letter is an open invitation to assess cost back
to the developer. He feels the city should go ahead if necessary to get the
work done. The proposed ordinance includes pumping both ponds daily. The
letter and the ordinance would equal what the agreement contained. Perhaps
licenses should be held from the businesses in the shopping center as leverage
to convince the developer that the city is serious.