Laserfiche WebLink
City of <br />L'1, <br />~~i <br />Minnesota, USA <br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />Minutes <br />City Hall Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Monday, Apri120, 2009 <br />1. Call Roll <br />Mayor Klausing called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approxi- <br />mately 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone. <br />(Voting and Seating Order for April: Ihlan; Roe; Pust; Johnson and Klausing) <br />City Attorney Scott Anderson was also present. <br />Closed Executive Session -Attorney-Client Privilege <br />City Attorney Anderson reviewed the purpose of the Closed Executive Session. <br />Roe moved, Pust seconded, recessed the meeting into Closed Executive Session, on a vote of <br />5/0, at 6:02 p.m., in accordance with Minnesota Statute, Section 13D.01, for the City Council <br />and staff, and legal counsel to discuss attorney/client privileged information and confidential ap- <br />• praisal information related to a discussion regarding Hagen Ventures, LLC; amended to include <br />Minnesota Statute, Section 13D.05, subd. 3.c that closure also allowed to discuss real property <br />that maybe subject to an offer or counter-offer to purchase. <br />Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern in closing the meeting for this purpose; interpreting the <br />purpose to be consideration of a potential counter-offer by the City for potential purchase of the <br />Hagen Ventures, LLC property; and whether attorney/client privilege was required. <br />Mayor Klausing requested City Attorney Anderson to expand on rationale for the Closed Execu- <br />tive Session. <br />City Attorney Anderson clarified legal counsel's rationale and opined that this litigation issue did <br />reference a previous discussion and potential acquisition by the City of a portion of the Hagen <br />Ventures LLC property; however, City Attorney Anderson noted that a damage claim was now <br />being proposed with a drop dead date for conditions to be met to avoid threatened litigation. <br />Councilmember Pust suggested that, providing for an abundance of caution, the meeting could <br />be tape-recorded and later determination made as to whether that record be opened, or protected <br />under Attorney/Client privilege. <br />City Attorney Anderson advised that this was an option. <br />Councilmember Ihlan advised that this would resolve her concerns in separating legal advice on <br />litigation and counter-offers needing to be recorded; and that under those conditions, she would <br />support a motion to go into Closed Executive Session. <br />