pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-11-01 | 5 | negotiating position. Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the settlement is typically considered to be under proceedings or if there is a definition for the term. Mr. Kuhn responded in the affirmative, stated it is all one and the same; he would either settle an eminent domain action via SA, which calls for the exact terms and dismissal after the fact pursuant to a stipulated judgment where the Court transfers the property. Commissioner Reid inquired whether the final Master Plan approved by Council in 2016 includes the parcel in question. Ms. Freeman responded in the affirmative; stated the design includes the 4.52 acres along the southern border. Commissioner Reid inquired why the public would not have the right to know about the reduction in property if it was part of the Master Plan. Mr. Kuhn responded that the public did know about it; the terms were reported out in open session; there were Recreation and Parks meetings well before which discussed potential reductions and changes in size; Ms. Freeman was aware of it before the meeting and submitted a comment letter on it; nothing was hidden from the public; the City decided to resolve pending litigation in Closed Session so they could talk about risks and potential ramifications of moving forward with acquiring the entire corridor and whether or not there was funding. Ms. Freeman stated from copies she obtained of Court case documents and the Recreation and Parks Director's meeting with the public to explain that the west end of the park had to be redesigned, she deduced the change; why it had to be redesigned was not explained; one charts said: "not City-owned property" which was subsequently removed; a blank space showed it would no longer be considered as part of the Park; what was going on was never discussed in public; she was assuming that this was the issue due to the Court records and the meeting about the redesign of the park, but it was never stated by the City. Commissioner Reid inquired whether Mr. Kuhn was involved in the litigation with Union Pacific, to which Mr. Kuhn responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Montgomery inquired whether there would have been any effect on the negotiation or settlement if the matter been placed on a later agenda date. Mr. Kuhn responded that he does not want to speculate, but would assume that if there was an open session and the City disclosed valuation, potential exposure and the risks of acquiring the entire corridor, it would significantly impact the negotiating position with Union Pacific. Meeting of the Open Government Commission November 1, 2021 5 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf |