Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts Eviction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council directs staff to evict or restrict BDM/Firebird Land LLC from most city offices after failed settlement talks
Summary
The council voted to limit BDM/Firebird Land LLC to a single office and to begin eviction-related measures within 30 days unless the company complies with conditions; councilmembers cited long-term, unpaid use of city utilities and a failed settlement despite a previous handshake agreement.
Get email alerts on the Contracts Eviction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The East Bethel City Council on Sept. 8 voted to direct staff to evict or restrict BDM Construction/Firebird Land LLC from two city-owned offices if the company did not comply with conditions following failed settlement negotiations. A councilmember said the parties had a handshake agreement reached after negotiations but the business later changed terms; the councilmember said the business owner indicated he had set aside $100,000 to litigate the city over the matter. The motion directs staff to evict from Rooms 106 and 107 within 30 days while allowing one office (Room 108) to remain for business use, and to calculate and isolate electrical usage for that office. The motion also directs staff to change the building Internet password to prevent unauthorized use and to require removal of an unauthorized sign within 24 hours (or the city will remove it). The council further directed that any repairs or damages to city office space be charged to BDM/Firebird and that the city pursue small-claims actions for unpaid damage as needed. The city attorney advised that there is no separate formal lease and that eviction or ejectment would be civil legal action likely to lead to litigation; the attorney cautioned that litigation is possible but not certain. The motion passed on voice vote with one abstention recorded; no roll-call tally was taken. Councilmembers who supported the motion cited long-standing unpaid utility and Internet usage and the need to stop using taxpayer funds to subsidize a private business; members opposed raised concern about possible legal costs and recommended further attempts to resolve the issue without litigation.

