Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEMAIL FROM CHRIS WENDLAND Page 1 of 3 NANCY ECKERT From: Chris Wendland [chris.wendland@cbwhlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 11:52 AM To: ARIC SCHROEDER Cc: NOEL ANDERSON; NANCY ECKERT; DON TEMEYER; MAYOR HURLEY Subject: Re: LS Power Development Agreement Aric: Handling rescission in the manner you indicate should be fine. Wording for effectiveness of the rezoning amendment is suggested as follows: "This ordinance shall become effective following publication hereof as required by law and upon completion of the annexation process for the subject real estate in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 368 of the Code of Iowa (2007), which in any event must be completed within six (6) months from the date hereof, or this ordinance shall be void and of no force or effect." As I suggested in an earlier e-mail (and may have talked about with Noel), the way we close the loop to ensure effectiveness is to record proof that filing has been made with the Secretary of State. I can help with that when the time comes. As to imposition of city taxes, I can't find a copy of the earlier resolution so am not sure what it said. I assume the intent here is to take advantage of a statutory feature that allows the City to transition the property from county taxation to city taxation. Finally, I have no concerns about leaving Section 3.4 of the development agreement as it is. It is mostly a statement of intent and included for the sole purpose of assuring adjacent opposing property owners. Moreover, it is not legally binding on the City, and the provision says as much. I don't care whether it is there or not, but Elk Run thought it was an important message for those property owners. Others shouldn't care and have no legal standing to challenge it. Chris Wendland Original Message From: ARIC SCHROEDER To: Chris Wendland Cc: NOEL ANDERSON ; NANCY ECKERT ; DON TEMEYER ; MAYOR HURLEY Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 11:10 AM Subject: RE: LS Power Development Agreement The wording rescinding the previous rezone ordinance will be right in the ordinance adopting the new rezone, so I think it is all taken care of in one "clean" motion. I think Nancy will make it clear on the Council's agenda that the action is 1) rescinding the previous rezone, and 2) adopting the new rezone. The other thing that has to be decided is exactly what wording is going to be put in the Ordinance that indicates when it becomes effective. I think Chris, your thought was to put wording indicating that the rezone shall be effective upon annexation of the area. The other option is to just pick an effective date that we know is out there far enough that the annexation would be completed by then. Another issue we have to make sure we have worded the way we want is the annexation resolution wording on the "imposition of city taxes". But I think the wording we used last time should still be good. One last area of the Development Agreement that I think should be given consideration for change is Section 3.4 "Annexation Moratorium" and the Appendix C that that section refers to. It was commented on at one of the hearings by an individual in opposition to the request, questioning if it was legitimate to have a Development 3/19/2008 Page 2 of 3 Agreement exclusively agreed to by the City of Waterloo and LS Power, that involves other land and land owners that are not parties to the agreement. Now maybe the wording in the section is generic enough that it could be argued it does not involve or affect those parties, as it is only meant to convey an "intent" of the current Council not to annex those lands. However, if there is any concern that it would be considered affecting those individuals and therefore invalid because those individuals are not a party to the Development Agreement, then we should remove the entire section and appendix. Aric From: Chris Wendland [mailto:chris.wendland@cbwhlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 10:28 AM To: ARIC SCHROEDER Cc: NOEL ANDERSON Subject: Re: LS Power Development Agreement Aric: I think the timeline looks fine, but be sure that we include in the process action to rescind the rezoning amendment that was passed last year. I assume this will be done concurrently with other action on project approvals. My suggestion is that it be done by the council either before the public hearing or as the first item after the public hearing, just so we have a clean slate as a matter of chronology. Chris Wendland Original Message From: ARIC SCHROEDER To: DON TEMEYER ; NOEL ANDERSON ; MAYOR HURLEY ; Chris Wendland ; Mark Milburn Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 5:11 PM Subject: LS Power Development Agreement Has any additional thought and/or decision been made as to if the development agreement is also getting redone or revised? I just don't want that issue to get ignored, and it then decided that changes are needed and they aren't ready in time to stay with the April 21 Council timeline when the rezone and annexation should be back on. I haven't really had any involvement with the development agreement side of things, so I don't know. I know Mark had suggested a few areas that may need to be amended. Dates in particular, as the project has been set back, but also wording on Newell Street improvements may need to be worded differently based on the new annexation boundary. Meanwhile, I'm going to go back through the Code sections ONE LAST TIME and make sure the attached timeline covers all it needs to. If anyone sees anything that is wrong or overlooked, please let me know. Aric Subject to the requirements of the Iowa Open Records Act, this message and accompanying documents are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Subsection 2510- 252, as amended, and contains information intended for the specified individual(s) only. This information is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, 3/19/2008 Page 3 of 3 please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. 1 Subject to the requirements of the Iowa Open Records Act, this message and accompanying documents are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Subsection 2510-252, as amended, and contains information intended for the specified individual(s) only. This information is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately by e-mail,and delete the original message. 3/19/2008