2006_1204_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council Study Session —11120/06 DRAFT Minutes - Page 14 the agreement is void, or whether it needs to be terminated before any future development proposals move forward. A letter was distributed to Councilmembers as a Bench Handout (no copy available) from the City's development attorney, Rod Krass, regarding the need to hold a Closed Executive Session to further discussion those items requested by Councilmember Ihlan. Councilmember [Ihlan] expressed her frustration that a Closed Executive Session hadn't been scheduled at tonight's meeting. Mayor Klausing addressed the Court of Appeals decision, and their actual ruling; and opined that there was nothing in the decision that would void the existing contract or process. Councilmember Ihlan advised Mayor Klausing that she wasn't asking for his opinion; but was asking for a clarification on the legal status of the contract and how it related to future development proposals before they moved forward. City Attorney Anderson pointed out the language of the third paragraph of Mr. Krass's letter that addressed Councilmember Ihlan's concerns that if future applications were approved, the existing contract should be modified, but was not void; which concurred with Mr. Anderson's similar analysis and court case results previously provided to the City Council. Mayor Klausing advised that, if it was Councilmember Ihlan's desire, another update in Executive Session could be scheduled. Mayor Klausing expressed his frustration that if Councilmembers appeared in disagreement with Councilmember Ihlan's position, they were assessed by Councilmember Ihlan as "not taking the issue seriously." Councilmember Pust provided her perspective that while there were differences of opinion being expressed, there was one real answer, and whatever it turned out to be, it