Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Council Minutes <br />September 20, 2010 <br />Page 16 <br />approval requirements by the Village, all of which they have agreed to, they just haven't <br />put it in the language we have accepted yet. <br />Dr. Parker asked, okay, so that will be forthcoming then? Mr. Diemert replied, yes. <br /> <br />Dr. Parker stated, okay, because I didn't see it in there. Very good. Thank you. <br />Mr. Marquardt asked, why with so many things hanging out are we in such a hurry pass <br />this thing? What's driving the urgency? If there's so many items that have not been in the <br />contract and agreements with Progressive that haven't been worked out. I don't <br />understand. <br />Mayor Rinker replied, the urgency was stated a number of times which is that the Library <br />Board needs to move forward. This money availability and its use for some 13 projects has <br />reprioritized after the State of Ohio took away roughly $10 million from its annual budget. <br />This was something that was stated by Ms. Feldman when she was here two weeks ago. We <br />have talked about that again. So, realistically, the Board needs to make this decision <br />because its timetable is limited. This is one of about 13 projects is our understanding and <br />this is a priority so we have been asked by the Library Board to move forward. So that's <br />the primary driver of this. The Board has to my understanding held off on its meeting in <br />order to get its Committee review and then vote the dollars and then it will move forward. , <br />The process itself will go through the usual site plan reviews that would normally follow. <br />As for Progressive, it's a fair question. As I just pointed out though I think we have to take <br />one step at a time. Were we to endeavor to negotiate a three-way deal, I think that would be <br />possible and certainly with the timetable we have been given, it isn't practical as well. So <br />if there'. s a risk, the risk is that we still don't know the final issues with Progressive. I <br />have pointed this out a number of times in the past with Council as I have characterized <br />that we have a"De-Development Agreement" to work on. If anything, this may catalyze <br />that discussion but all indications are, especially with the fact that Progressive is donating <br />land and also credits to this, I think that's a pledge of good faith that we can't ignore. It's <br />something that's very valuable. <br />Mr. Diemert added, also, Bill, in order to save the allocation of those monies into this <br />Village for this project, all they really need is a contract signed even though there's a lot of <br />requirements and conditions within that contract such as approvals by the Village of <br />everything and the Federal government of everything, those requirements will always give <br />us the opportunity to say no to the project if something comes up that is not feasible or <br />workable or good for our citizens such as the reversionary clause never gets into the <br />contract we will just say no and we have the right to do that. But they need to get it under <br />contract. We have toid them the final nitpicking that we have with it so that they can get <br />the allocation of the funds and I think that's what triggers the money coming here, all the <br />plans, all the conditions, all the approvals, that will be down the road.