My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2008_0512
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2008
>
CC_Minutes_2008_0512
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2008 10:05:51 AM
Creation date
6/13/2008 10:05:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/12/2008
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, May 12, 2008 <br />Page 9 <br />Councilmember Ihlan noted the pending and unresolved litigation for additional <br />environmental review; opining that such Council action to approve agreements <br />would be premature at this time, and would be indicative of previous action with <br />the Twin Lakes litigation issue and contractual obligations that would leave the <br />City vulnerable to additional costs. <br />Mayor Klausing opined that the City had approved the Planned Unit Development <br />(PUD) Agreement, and if it was proved invalid by the court, adverse to the City <br />Council's findings that no further environmental review was necessary, then any <br />subsequent agreements under the PUD also became null and void, thus providing <br />protection to the City. <br />Councilmember Roe opined that with the PUD in place that the college was in <br />compliance with environmental regulations. <br />Klausing moved, Roe seconded, approval of a Public Improvement Contract be- <br />tween the City of Roseville and Northwestern College, 3003 Snelling Avenue, as <br />conditioned in the Amended Planned Unit Development Agreement for North- <br />western College, adopted October 8, 2007. <br />Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion; opining that the City had found <br />no further environmental review was needed; and the fact that someone served to <br />challenge that finding didn't negate the PUD until a court so determined; and if <br />the PUD was determined invalid, any subsequent agreements also became null <br />and void. <br />Councilmember Ihlan spoke against the motion, reiterating her previous com- <br />ments that such action was premature with pending litigation. <br />Councilmember Pust spoke in support of the motion, noting that actual language <br />in the contract was opposite of what was indicated by Councilmember Ihlan, and <br />that without this proposed Public Improvement Contract the City didn't have the <br />ability to hold the college monetarily accountable. Councilmember Pust noted <br />that the contract indicated the responsibilities of the college to pay the City in ac- <br />cordance with the contract terms. Councilmember Pust further noted, on page 6 <br />of 10 of the document, Section M (lines 217 - 224), the "hold harmless" language <br />protecting the City with such a contract in place. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Pust; Roe and Klausing. <br />Nays: Ihlan. <br />Motion carried. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.