Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contract Negotiation Whispering Aspen topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Bethel council to negotiate with BDM over Whispering Aspen contract; attorney to check closed‑session and insurance implications
Summary
The East Bethel City Council on June 23 advanced negotiations with BDM Construction over the Whispering Aspen contract and asked the city attorney to research closed‑session rules and insurance implications.
Get email alerts on the Contract Negotiation Whispering Aspen topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The East Bethel City Council on June 23 advanced talks with BDM Construction over the decades‑old Whispering Aspen development contract and asked city staff and the city attorney to research potential legal and insurance consequences before any formal action.
City staff summarized outstanding issues in the BDM contract: undefined common‑area maintenance (CAM) responsibilities, operating costs (electricity, water, sewer, internet), road responsibilities dating to 2004, and a clause that the purchaser is responsible for property taxes. Staff said a proposed monthly CAM figure of $450 would cover utilities, internet and a share of mowing, cleaning and snowplowing but would not necessarily cover the sign in front of the property. The administrator said property taxes that previously were unpaid are currently being paid for the current tax year.
Councilors discussed options including negotiation, settlement, or litigation. One councilmember said taxpayer dollars should not have been used for utilities at the site for years and urged a negotiated solution rather than legal action. A BDM representative told the council he has been doing business in the city for 22 years and is willing to meet to resolve the matter; he said BDM expressed interest in remaining at the site for another five years.
Councilmembers proposed forming a small negotiation group to meet with BDM. The city attorney, Mr. Mundell, said he would research whether the League of Minnesota Cities would provide defense or coverage for contractual claims and whether the council could enter a closed session under the litigation exception or other authorized category. He also warned about the League’s typical focus on defense for tort claims and said he would follow up by email.
The council did not authorize litigation or a contract change at the work session; instead it asked staff to pursue negotiations with BDM and requested legal follow‑up on closed‑session authority and insurance/trust coverage.

