pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-11-01 | 2 | Commissioner LoPilato inquired how an eminent domain proceeding can be resolved via settlement if certain segments have to be discussed in open session. Mr. Foreman responded the actual negotiation has to be done in Closed Session; stated once negotiations are completed, the City Attorney could simply ask to present the SA at an open meeting of the City Council for consideration and public input; if it is not accepted, it would start over again; compared the matter to labor negotiations. Commissioner LoPilato inquired how the matter would be agendized, to which Mr. Foreman responded it would have to be agendized for the next meeting; stated in February, the City indicated an agreement was reached in principle; he would not be worried about a two-week delay between a Closed Session and the final presentation. In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry regarding appraisals, Mr. Foreman stated the question is not germane to the issue, but he could answer if there is no objection from the Commission; he attended a neighborhood meeting at Jean Sweeney Park where Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft explained the original appraisal was approximately $1 million and that the railroad came back with $8 million; the Mayor further explained that due to the large disparity, the Council got a second appraisal, which was significantly higher and led Council to believe the City could not afford to purchase the entire property; he asked the Mayor about the second appraisal; the Mayor said the City Attorney instructed it cannot be revealed. In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, Mr. Kuhn stated there was a confidential exchange of appraisals between the City and Union Pacific in the middle of litigation; pursuant to an agreement signed by the parties, the City is not allowed to disclose the valuation information presented by Union Pacific; he is able to say that the second appraisal was significantly higher; the Closed Session was necessary to discuss the risks of litigation on the potential exposure; he does not see any way to have candid dialogue in open session; he does not think it is fair to reach a decision in Closed Session and then ask for public input, but not be able to discuss the risks of the litigation and potential exposure; it puts the City Council in an unfair position; the ultimate outcome was the same because the SA was disclosed and reported out in open session; the details were fully laid out to the public. Mr. Foreman stated the Council was not obligated to keep the appraisals a secret, but agreed to do so; the Council could have come to an open meeting to make the same disclosure that the Mayor and Mr. Kuhn just made and the public would at least have something to discuss; the Complaint is not about a bad decision, it is about a secret conclusion that was made without public input. Commissioner Reid stated that she is trying to understand how the appraisal fits into the context of the current zoning; inquired about the current zoning of the property. Mr. Foreman responded the current zoning on a small piece of the property is industrial and Union Pacific (UP) wants to raise to R2 and is also talking about density beyond R2 Meeting of the Open Government Commission November 1, 2021 2 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf |