Quote:
Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman
So it looks like CivicSD made an administrative error and will hold another hearing to formally reflect the changes made to the contract agreement, even though a contract was already approved:
7th and Market summary:
http://civicsd.com/images/stories/Se...ic_Hearing.pdf
Hope that clears things up for you guys.. |
This actually confuses me more. I don't think this is why the city council put-off approval.
The CivicSD document describes a procedural step to re-approve because of an error having to do with the water system. The UT article, however, links the city-council's decision to their effort to put more oversight on CivicSD, not a delay because of the water system. Those are two separate issues. CivicSD can re-approve the project, but it still needs city council approval because that's a city-owned parcel, so as I read all this we are still in the same holding pattern - waiting for the city council to give the green light.
The one thing I don't get, though - the CivicSD document says the city council approved the project's WSA (water system assessment) on 20-September. That's the same day the UT reports the city delayed approval of the project as a whole. So why would the city approve the WSA part but stall on the overall project ?