Davenport council schedules fuller review of revised Riverwatch Place development agreement after public split

The Davenport City Council’s Committee of the Whole spent more than an hour on Dec. 4 on the revised development agreement for the Riverwatch Place project, hearing mixed public comment and detailed staff explanations of new contractual safeguards.

City Administrator Maxheimer summarized changes staff negotiated into the agreement, including requirements that the developer enroll in and complete an Iowa DNR land-recycling program, a 12-month deadline to complete sidewalks on Third and Clear Streets tied to forfeiture of hotel-motel rebate incentives for noncompliance, a material-breach provision that could terminate tax exemptions, a 12/31/2025 project-commencement deadline and an indemnification clause. "It also adds a failure to comply with sidewalk installation in a timely fashion may result in forfeiture of, the hotel motel rebate incentives," the administrator said.

Public commenters were split. Cheryl Shagner of the Third Ward said the agreement lacks attachments and that key language is vague, arguing taxpayers should be protected: "that word is very subjective, certainly not very concrete," she said, and warned the city could have difficulty enforcing performance or assessing liability for contaminated soil. Judith Lee said she could not find promised background documents and called the public "still being left in the dark." By contrast, JJ Condon, a downtown resident and former alderman, praised the local developer and urged the council not to miss an opportunity to redevelop a long-vacant parcel.

Council members focused less on the merits of the project than on whether bringing the item back to the agenda complied with council rules after a prior defeat. Corporate counsel read from Robert’s Rules to distinguish motions to "reconsider," a "motion to renew," and a "motion to rescind," and argued the newly added clawback, environmental requirements and material-breach language change the substance of the agreement enough to be considered substantially different. "A motion to renew... is a motion to introduce again something that has not been adopted," counsel said during the explanation.

Given those modifications and the procedural questions raised by several aldermen, the council voted to move item 3 (the Riverwatch agreement) to the discussion agenda at the next cycle rather than approve it tonight. One council member moved to place items 1 and 2 on the consent agenda and item 3 on the discussion agenda; the motion passed by voice vote.

Next steps: the Riverwatch Place resolution will return for a dedicated discussion on the council’s discussion agenda, with staff materials and supporting attachments expected to be provided to council members and the public ahead of that meeting.