CC_Minutes_2017_1106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 6, 2017 Page 5 this agreement, now at the city's disposal, provided the city a legal document to enforce in a court of law requiring compliance, something not available to the city before. Specific to putting an immediate end to this particular use on the property, City Attorney Gaughan advised that the city didn't have the legal authority to do so at this point. Mr. Gaughan further noted that the property owner had initiated the lawsuit against the city based on their confidence that they can continue this use and be backed by a court of law. Mr. Gaughan clarified that the city can't simply impose conditions outside of an IU. Mr. Gaughan advised that this was a settle- ment agreement between all parties in an attempt to resolve issues; and resulted in a comprise with neither party getting everything they wanted, but providing the city with a legal recourse if the use continues past a certain point while at the same time allowing the property owner time to get their property in order and consistent with other IU's often issued in the city. At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan confirmed that if someone purchases the property prior to end of the five year agreement period intending the same use as currently, they would have to bring the property into compliance and terminate that use at the end of the five year agreement term. Councilmember McGehee asked City Attorney Gaughan if, in fact, some of the items suggested during public comment had been attempted for inclusion in the agreement during negotiations,but did not come to fruition. City Attorney Gaughan advised that he was ethically bound to not speak to specif- ic negotiation points other than to state that the agreement as presented tonight had been the result of a compromise. When first presented with the terms of this settlement agreement in Closed Execu- tive Session, Councilmember Willmus stated that he had concerns and had asked questions, opining that the agreement was largely favorable for Dorso, and given the history and inability to work with Mr. Dorso in the past, he didn't feel the agreement provided sufficient protection to the city. Councilmember Willmus opined that the city would still most likely end up in court. Even with the agree- ment's sunset date at five years rather than one to two years, Councilmember Willmus noted the ongoing problem for decades, it would be more beneficial to continue with litigation rather than waiting for five years without resolution and still end up in court. If the city was to agree to continue litigation, Councilmember McGehee asked that as a follow-up, the issues presented in the lawsuit against the city and the es- timated costs for the city to pursue litigation be clearly identified.