CC_Minutes_2017_1106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,November 6, 2017 Page 7 sketched within 60 days, and improvements to aesthetics, etc.) would improve the visual and health and safety of the area in general; serving to clean up some major concerns and supporting action of staff to-date. For this reason, Councilmember Etten stated that he would not support the motion, even though recognizing other concerns, opining this was the best option for the city to resolve issues by the end of the settlement agreement or at sale of the property without continuing to leave things open-ended. Councilmember Etten stated that he wished provisions in the agreement were stronger on the city's behalf, but he supported the negotiated agreement. Mayor Roe asked City Attorney Gaughan to provide a conceptual description of the time and effort expended to get to this agreement; and if further negotiation would achieve a better deal. City Attorney Gaughan reviewed the legal action initiated by Dorso in May of 2017 following a year of work by staff and Dorso in remedying life safety issues and continuing further negotiations in late May and early June up to one month ago with the City Council met with Dorso's litigation counsel and him in Closed Executive Session to reach this point. Mr. Gaughan advised that litigation had been stayed depending on a possible early settlement, but would recommence if this settlement agreement is rejected. If the motion is successful, Councilmember Willmus stated that he would hope renegotiations would resume with Dorso. Referencing Councilmember Etten's mention of the sale of the property, Councilmember Willmus noted that it was clear in the agreement such a sale would be for redevelopment purposes, stating his interest in being clear about some of those types of redevelopment. Related to agreement provisions for fencing and screening, Councilmember Willmus noted that they were only called for on one side (Cleveland Avenue); and therefore he would like to return to the negotiating table for further conversations, opining Dorso was simply testing the waters at this point seeking a response from this body. Councilmember Willmus opined that it behooved the response to be that this body sought terms far more favorable to the community and those residential neighbors living beside this property. Councilmember Willmus questioned the harm in going back and renegotiating a better deal for the City of Roseville and its residents versus adopting the agreement tonight as presented. City Attorney Gaughan stated that he was being asked to speculate,but one poten- tial pitfall was that the other parties would refuse to negotiate and with resump- tion of the litigation resulting in similar or a far less favorable conclusion after another few years in court with no conditions imposed between now and the con- clusion of the litigation. Mayor Roe asked if another result may be that the other parties could withdraw if the agreement was rejected by the City Council.