Below is a letter I sent to Council on December 1, 2024.
The context for the letter is a second request by Devour! for an extension to time to complete the accessible deck and bathroom.
The Staff in its report on the requested amendment said that the bathroom is complete and presently can be used. However, the Memorandum of Understanding, signed by the Town and Devour!, and amended once already, required not only that the bathroom be constructed by the end of 2024, but that it would be open to the public during daily business hours. Devour! has failed to meet this latter goal.
The MOU contains language that if Devour! failed to meet its time deadlines for completion of the accessible bathroom and deck, Devour! would return the $50,000.00 it had already received from the Town and the Town was no longer obligated to give Devour! a second $50,000.00.
The Council received two letters, mine and another citizen’s, prior to the Committee of the Whole meeting held on December 3, 2024. In our letters we raised issues and posed questions regarding the return of the Devour! grant funds.
Oddly, perhaps, during the discussion of the proposed MOU amendments members of Council did not mention the two letters nor did they question Staff about the issues raised therein. Had Council members been advised not to say anything about the two letters?
————–
Dear Members of Council:
Please accept the following comments and questions in lieu of a live presentation at the public input portion of the upcoming COW meeting.
Devour! [“D!] has for the second time failed to meet the obligations it undertook when it agreed to the MOU and its first amendment. It has not completed nor even started construction on the deck it told the Town it would complete by December 31, 2024. It has also failed to make the accessible bathroom “open and available for use by the general public during regular business hours . . .”
The MOU contains provisions to address what could happen if D! fails to meet its obligations. In the case of the accessible bathroom, the MOU states: “If all the Renovations are not completed by December 31, 2022 (or such later date as agreed to by Wolfville) D! must return the $50,000.00 for the Renovations to Wolfville upon demand.”
As to the non-completion of the deck, the MOU at clause 2.1(n) states: “If construction of the deck is not completed by December 31, 2023 (or such later date as agreed to by Wolfville) Wolfville will not be required to pay the $50,000.00 for the costs of the Deck to Devour!.”
The RFD 057-2024 under the heading “Alternatives” states “Council does not approve the motion.”
Staff has failed to raise the possibility, contemplated by the MOU, that if D! does not to meet its obligations, the Town is not required to grant D! $100,000.00.
Why did Staff fail in this regard?
I have raised this precise question before, when D! asked for the first extension of time. I received no answer.
(Claiming that if the $100,000.00 grant is denied, D! would not be obligated to construct the accessible deck and restroom is not an answer. That claim, even if true, may answer why the extension of time should be granted, but does not answer why the Staff did not include the return the grant money as an “alternative”.)
Why does it matter whether the Staff included for Council’s consideration the return and withholding of the grant monies? ”The powers of the municipality are exercised by the council.” MGA s. 14(1). In this instance, Staff failed to include in the RFD a fulsome discussion of the pros and cons of all of the Town’s options under the MOU. As a result Staff, intentionally or not, has exercised powers Staff should not and does not have.
$100,000.00 is a lot of taxpayers’ dollars. In its public deliberations, Council should explore all the options available to it, and provide legitimate reasons in support of its ultimate decision.
Respectfully,
David Daniels