My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0129
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0129
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:44:44 AM
Creation date
2/27/2007 3:51:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/29/2007
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
138
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Roseville City Council <br />Minutes of 1/29/07 Pg 8 of 38 <br />Councilmember Kough spoke in support of the motion. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson clarified that various counselors representing <br />the City to-date: Jim Casserly of Krass Monroe, as development <br />Counsel for the City; Mr. Reuvers of the Iverson Reuvers firm as at- <br />torney for litigation between Friends of Twin Lakes v. the City, and <br />selected as one of five firms provided and recommended by the <br />LMCIT; with Mr. Reuvers also handling two other litigation issues on <br />land use matters, one a taking claim from a landowner in the Twin <br />Lakes redevelopment area, and another for an unrelated land use is- <br />sue. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of the motion; opining that the <br />Iverson Reuvers firm had represented the City as co-defendant with <br />the developer in the litigation brought by the Friends of Twin Lakes v. <br />the City; and opined the need for a fresh perspective and new, inde- <br />pendent counsel to best represent citizen taxpayers and a potentially <br />adverse relationship. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson cautioned that, assuming the City Council <br />voted to choose new counsel, they would need to obtain another list of <br />approved attorneys from the LMCIT, pursuant to the insurance <br />agreement between the City and the LMCIT. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan noted that City Attorney Anderson's opinion <br />had not been requested; and reiterated that the several other firms had <br />already been approved by the LMCIT, and if necessary, the LMCIT <br />could be advised by the City that the firms previously expressing in- <br />terest were being considered as new independent counsel. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson advised that, whether his opinion had been <br />requested by one Councilmember or not, it was his duty to advise the <br />full Council, as their legal counsel, of their contractual agreement and <br />the terms of the LMCIT insurance agreement (Section I, Part 2, Page <br />8) with the City of Roseville. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing spoke in opposition to the motion; opining that three <br />law firms were already involved in the case: that of the City's Attor- <br />ney; services of Rod Krass and Jim Casserly for financial and devel- <br />opment issues; and the firm ofIverson Reuvers for their expertise. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.