RIPON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
COMMITTEE MINUTES – IRONGATE EAST AND WEST

Monday, January 14, 2008 at 2:00 P.M.


Attendees: Mayor Curt Pernice; Vice Mayor Chuck Winn; Council Member Red Nutt, City Administrator Leon Compton, Planning Director Ken Zuidervaart, Building and Public Works Director Ted Johnston, Police Chief Dick Bull, City Engineer Kevin Werner, City Attorney Tom Terpstra, Mitzi Johnston, Staff

Others Present: No one from the public was present

L. Compton said that back when the Development Agreement was written for this project he thought that the applicant might try to separate the East from the West but the City had tied them together because of the storm drainage concerns. L. Compton said that if the Council chooses to allow the separation that we need to figure out how to deal with the storm drainage and the affordable housing requirements. L. Compton said that this is a meeting to make sure all are aware of the potential concerns.

C. Winn asked if L. Compton had spoken with the other signers on the DA and L. Compton said that he has contacted Mike Steele who is representing Lionel Brazil while he is in recovery; and Mr. Steele had said that he was not aware of this request and that he would contact Braddock and Logan and then call Mr. Compton back. L. Compton said that he has not yet heard back from Mr. Steele and so does not know if they have spoken.

C. Winn asked if Mr. Steele had given any indication of if they were in agreement or not and L. Compton replied that he is not sure and so he will try to call Mr. Steele again.

R. Nutt asked which property Mr. Steele would be representing and L. Compton said that it was for the Michael Barton property. L. Compton went on to explain that Mr. Brazil and Mr. Steele were silent partners on this.

L. Compton explained that Braddock and Logan have the production portion of the project or Irongate East and Mr. Steele and Mr. Brazil are silent partners for Irongate West.

R. Nutt asked about the basin and how that would be handled.

L. Compton commented that the City needs to protect the long term viability of the property.
The storm water for the site has to go to the basin and we need to expand the basin. The plan was to use the dirt from the basin to bring up the Barton property which is too low.

L. Compton said that if we let them off the hook; who is going to be on the hook to expand the basin?

C. Pernice asked what if they want to sever their ties and not do the other part of Irongate. Are we O.K. with this?
C. Winn said that the City Council voted in good faith because the projects were tied together. There are dedicated acres to serve the storm drainage issues. Whatever they are obligated under the DA to do, they are required to do. If not willing, he doesn’t see a reason to change it. Either they do all they said that they would do absent the custom lots and bring in the other partners on this to agree or we don’t approve. It is not the City’s obligation to bail the developer out.

C. Pernice asked about them dedicating the land and K. Zuidervaart explained that they wish to set up a BA district where they would get paid back.

C. Pernice asked if the land is our land would it fall into a prevailing wage issue. T. Terpstra said that it would increase the risk.

L. Compton said if the City Council were to take a hard stand and they say they are not going to do the rest of the project, we could end up with half of a developed subdivision and could have the residents coming to the City Council meetings wanting to know why we are not working with them.

K. Zuidervaart said that if we dig the basin, we would need to put the dirt somewhere. Would it be O.K. to have the dirt sitting somewhere; possibly on the Barton property?

C. Winn said that if they sell the West side to another developer; do they inherit the Development Agreement intact? T. Terpstra said that the DA goes with the land. The original can’t vacate the DA.

L. Compton said that all parties that signed the DA would have to be agreeable to this.

C. Winn said that who agrees to do what should be between the existing developer and purchaser and let them hash it out. C. Winn said that his concern is that we are only hearing from one of the parties and he would prefer that they all come in together to discuss.

T. Terpstra commented that at today’s market it doesn’t make sense to have two separate projects linked.

L. Compton commented that they were linked because the City wanted to have custom lots for the small developers. He asked what is the benefit for the City to let them out of this agreement..

T. Terpstra said that there is currently a half finished subdivision and we could be facing those concerns of it not being completed. If it doesn’t hurt the City but helps the residents then he thinks it should be o.k. but he is in agreement with C. Winn that we need both sides in on this.

C. Winn asked what happened with K& B Homes when they went away with a half finished project. C. Pernice said that when the new developer came in they had to comply with the new standards and had to widen the streets.

C. Winn said that he understands about the current residents and asked who is liable for that if the developer doesn’t finish. He asked if they have some recourse against the developer they can take.

T. Terpstra said that it is a question of how involved that neighborhood could get.

C. Pernice said that he needs to hear from all parties involved. How much exposure do we want as a City?

C. Winn said that this is predicated on an agreement that the City and Developer both signed and any changes would have to be mitigated so we don’t lose any grounds or quality. It needs to be in the best interest of the residents.

L. Compton suggested that maybe we have them provide custom lots along S. Mohler.

C. Pernice asked if each side had the right amount of affordable units and K. Zuidervaart replied that they do.

L. Compton said that if the dirt doesn’t go over to Irongate West, the basin may have to be deeper.

K. Zuidervaart said that the current basin is not big enough to handle the project.

Request letter to City Council. If want to go forward; all parties would have to come before the Development Agreement Committee to agree. R. Nutt said that he was in agreement that all parties should be in attendance.

The matter will be placed on the first meeting in February.

There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.

Submitted by: Mitzi Johnston