Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 8/28/1989

Home Browse Search

Council would require a 4/5's vote. The City however, could undertake the project on a 25% City 75% developer split at its own expense without the assessment on a 3/5's vote. The City does not have the agreement of the contractor to extend his bids, so that this matter could not presently be tabled beyond the June 27, 1988 1 ?ting be considered as late as the Council's July 11, 1988 meeting. The agreement with the develop, rs maxe them responsible for the costs. Mr. McDowell has verbally agreed to pay his share as a lump sum and Attachment D is a letter to the Woodhill Country Club requesting a lump sum payme . also. At this time all lots are sold so there is no property of the development against which an assessment could be macs-, although the Woodhill Country Club project does abut the rood. (In order to have Woodhill's payment done as an assessment, +.t would require the necessary 4/5's vote for the project.) ':he project vote, ordering the project, in any less than 4/5'a however, negates any subsequent vote to assess the abutting property owners apart from Woodhill and MSM (it would give them an initial basis on which to contest the special assessment hearing.) An alrernati a avenu, and pr.-)3ect direction would be to undertake the following process in advance of the public hearing: 1. Vote to cease the pruject's initial consideration F--)m last fall. Receive a petition from the developer. (Although re is no guarentee of receiving the petition - ,,;pecially since all lots have been sold.) 3. Reordor the feasibility study. 4. Accept the feasibility study that has already been done. 5. Withdraw bids. 6. Hold a public hearing. At that point the City would be a position to order the project on a 3/5's vote. Issue 2. Orde_rinq the P-olect - Once it has been determined as to the course of action the City chooses to undertake the next issue would be determination as to whether the project itself should be ordered with final resolve )f the 3/5's or 4/5's vote issue. should the City not choose to undertake the project at this time the developer would no longer be required to pay anything reSarding the improvement directly. In the future, shoul"i the Citv choose to undertake improvement to this public street it will either ha.•e to do it at its expense or attempt to specially assess some portion of the project to the abutting property owners. In the case of a future assessment direct benefit to the six lots i-: the Woodhill c..odi: ision may not be easily n