2007_0806_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regul�r City Council Meeting 1V�anr�ay, �uIy 23, 20U7 Page 10 � Roe �urther opined that, based on adverse decisions to-date by the 2 Court against the City o#� Rosevi�le, i� d�dn't appear the C�ty was go- 3 ing to be able tv colleet any additional mon�es £rom the dev�loper, and 4 sough� �o b� realistic �n any fizture po�cntia� negoi�at�onse Council- 5 member Roe n�ted tha�, if futur� clazxns could be quantified and �heir 6 magni�ude was such that this settlement ag�eem�nt secmed inappro- 7 pria�e, or i� the c�aims cou�d be success#'ul �ar the City of Roseville, S then it would c�us� �he agreement to be a bad id�a. 9 1 o Councilmembe�' Roe opined that Settleme�t �crm #4 regarding future �� deve�opment applicaizons by fihe developer be given fizll and fair conT 12 sideratinn, seen�ed to be a reasonable �request of the developer. 13 1,4 Councrl�nembe�' Roe spoke to public aecountability, opining that there �.5 was moare than sufficien� accountability for �his project; howe�e�, furT 16 the� op�ned th�t responsibility r�eeded to be shared by a�hex parties 17 who had o�iginated t%e lawsuii, and there appeared to be plenty of �.S blamc ta share. Councilmember Roe sugges�:ed �hat, rather than re- 19 hashing the pa�t, it was in the Ci�y's besi interest to make a sett�ement 20 and mov� forw�rd. 21 22 Councilm�m�e�' Pus� spoke �n support of the motion, and p�ovid�d hcr 23 histoxical �esea�'ch and pexspective on events leading up to this situa- 24 tion prior to and dux�ng he�- s�arvice to the City Council; opinzng �hat 25 �here wer� many years of d�scussion on how to deve�op the Twin 26 Lakes area; ne�o�iations wi�h th� developer; and the binding obliga- 27 �ions required in the confiract n�gotiated between th� Ci�y and �he de- 28 veloper. Counci�me�nber Pust noted that zt was th� int�nt af the con- 29 �rac� language that i� p�otected any patential Iiabi��iy £o�r the Ci�y and 30 the develape� �� the �hr�at�ned lawsuits by F�zends o�' T�in Lakes 31 w�re pursued. Councilmemb�r Pust opined tha�, once th� lawsu'rt was 32 f Ied, the Ci�y spent good money defending tihe Ci�y, also uszng tax- 33 payer monies, and �hat �he City arigina�Iy won �he lawsuii until ii was 34 pursued by appeal and u�timate adverse rulings against the Ciiy, cost- 35 ing additional money, at which time the si�uation changed �or the c�e- 3G veioper and �he City, and eventualIy with the developer pul�ing out of 37 �.he project. Council�zember Pust opined that it was unfortunate tk�at 38 the Dis�rict Cau�t had agreed with the deve�oper; but noted that the