pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-11-01 | 8 | representation in the litigation, which requires being able to have private discussion about the pros and cons; eminent domain proceedings, including a SA, could probably be a subject of debate, but the proceedings seem proper; she is inclined to dismiss the Complaint, but would not find it unfounded; she was troubled by the concept of pre- development agreement; arguments could be made that the pre-development agreement functionally paves the way, but she does not think it legally does anything that takes it out of the pending litigation exception. Chair Tilos stated that he concurs with Commissioner LoPilato's comments; there is definitely substance and he would not say the Complaint is unfounded. Commissioner Montgomery stated that she concurs with Commissioner LoPilato's statements, as well as Commissioner Chen's comments; she is leaning toward denied at this point, but not unfounded; she believes there are things to look at; perhaps a recommendation could be made for the future. Commissioner Reid stated that she agrees with Commissioner Chen that the matter does not pass the smell test in terms of transparency for the community; she is not suggesting the agreement be withdrawn or substantial changes made, but she wonders what harm there is in suggesting to the City Council reagendize the item to make the whole process more transparent; the Commission is here for the public; she is leaning towards transparency and providing the public with as much information as possible and an opportunity to participate. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that when Mr. Kuhn was discussing the ability to exit the agreement, he was talking about the point when the matter came to closed session in September; if there had been a delay at that point or some question on whether or not the City was going to agree to certain terms, Union Pacific or the City could have exited the agreement; at this point, there is a signed SA; she is not prepared to opine on the ramifications of the City trying to get out of the SA, but will say it is definitely beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the OGC; to clarify the point, Mr. Kuhn's statement had to do with the status at the beginning of September, not now. Chair Tilos stated since the matter did not pass the smell test, he would consider kicking it back but it would not change the outcome; it is a done deal; he would not say the Complaint is unfounded because there is definitely something going on; Complaint denied seems to be more appropriate. Commissioner Reid stated that she agrees with Chair Tilos; bringing it back would give the public an opportunity to be aware and weigh in; this has been going on since 2013; leave the doors open to allow the public to be aware; she does not see the harm in it since the outcome will not change; the OGC would be doing its job to create transparency. Chair Tilos stated the public is definitely aware now; it is after the fact, but there are quite a few attendees at the meeting. Meeting of the Open Government Commission November 1, 2021 8 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf |