CC_Minutes_2007_0723 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

e~ular City C®until eetin~ l~®nday, July 23, 2007 Pale 10 Roe further opined that, based on adverse decisions to-date by the Court against the City of Roseville, it didn't appear the City was go- ing to be able to collect any additional monies from the developer, and sought to be realistic in any future potential negotiations. Council- member Roe noted that, if future claims could be quantified and their magnitude was such that this settlement agreement seemed inappro- priate, or if the claims could be successful for the City of Roseville, then it would cause the agreement to be a bad idea. Councilmember Igoe opined that Settlement term #4 regarding future development applications by the developer be given full and fair con- sideration, seemed to be a reasonable request of the developer. Councilmember Roe spoke to public accountability, opining that there was more than sufficient accountability for this project; however, fur- ther opined that responsibility needed to be shared by other parties who had originated the lawsuit, and there appeared to be plenty of blame to share. Councilmember Roe suggested that, rather than re- hashing the past, it was in the City's best interest to make a settlement and move forward. Councilmember Pust spoke in support of the motion, and provided her historical research and perspective on events leading up to this situa- tion prior to and during her service to the City Council; opining that there were many years of discussion on how to develop the Twin Lakes area; negotiations with the developer; and the binding obliga- tions required in the contract negotiated between the City and the de- veloper. Councilmember Pust noted that it was the intent of the con- tract language that it protected any potential liability for the City and the developer if the threatened lawsuits by Friends of Twin Lakes were pursued. Councilmember Pust opined that, once the lawsuit was filed, the City spent good money defending the City, also using tax- payer monies, and that the City originally won the lawsuit until it was pursued by appeal and ultimate adverse rulings against the City, cost- ing additional money, at which time the situation changed for the de- veloper and the City; and eventually with the developer pulling out of the project. Councilmember Pust opined that it was unfortunate that the District Court had agreed with the developer; but noted that the