Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Regular Meeting —12/19/OS <br />DR.AFT Minutes - Page 22 <br />Council had available to it, and questioned why the decision was <br />going to be made with the "deciding vote provided by a lame <br />duck Councilmember." <br />Mayor Klausing suggested the Council address any questions <br />they had for Attorney Krass; followed by public comment; then <br />Council discussion. <br />Ihlan moved, Kough seconded, a motion to table the decision <br />until the new Council is in place in 2006. <br />Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of the motion; opining <br />that the citizens deserved the benefit of having a new City <br />Council take up the issue. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Maschka; Schroeder and Klausing. <br />Nays: Kough and Ihlan. <br />Motion failed. <br />Councilmember Kough questioned why the City Council <br />couldn't make a determination on eminent domain on a case by <br />case basis; expressed concerns about relocation funds and who <br />paid for retraining employees of relocated businesses. <br />Mr. Krass reviewed the relocation process, in accordance with <br />federally mandated guidelines; and that the City Council was <br />fulfilling their part of the contract between the redeveloper and <br />itself. Mr. Krass advised there was no provision for retraining <br />employees, as it was not connected with eminent domain <br />proceedings. <br />Councilmember Ihlan continued debate regarding contract <br />language; the City Council's sole discretion; applicable <br />standards; and contractual obligation. Councilmember Ihlan <br />opined that three members of the City Council have bargained <br />away our discretion, and allowed us to get ourselves into a bad <br />spot litigation-wise. <br />Discussion between Councilmember Ihlan and Attorney Krass <br />continued, including court determination as to whether the <br />redeveloper had met his contractual obligations; and good faith <br />