Laserfiche WebLink
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />May 3, 2005 <br />Page 11 of 16 <br /> <br />COUNCIL COMMENT <br /> <br />Council member Keany disclosed that Nancy Love was his campaign manager in <br />his last campaign for City Council. He asked if Mayor Sisk would prefer that he <br />recuse himself the discussions. Mayor Sisk requested that he not recuse himself. <br /> <br />Council member Keany reported on emails from Ms. Love and discussion relative <br />to this issue. He voiced his belief there were expenses that Ms. Love and Mr. <br />Richardson incurred and some reimbursement should be made. <br /> <br />Council member Van Pelt apologized to Nancy Love and Ron Richardson for the <br />miscommunications that led to an unfortunate set of circumstances. She voiced <br />her concern this might set precedence. She explained the Finance Committee <br />discussed this matter and thought the 9 hours directly related to the City's action <br />should be reimbursed. <br /> <br />Council member Levihn stated the lack of communication was part of the City's <br />responsibility. <br /> <br />City Manager Simmons responded to Ms. Love's comments, and noted the City <br />simply could not meet the expectations of all the property owners because all the <br />information was not at hand. He stated it took until mid-February to assemble all <br />the information and specification from the structural engineer and the contractor. <br />The City took the time to assemble all the data correctly and put in a proposal <br />that was transmitted to the property owners' attorney on February 25. <br /> <br />City Attorney Light reviewed his involvement in the matter, and reported on a <br />telephone conversation with landowners' attorney on February 11. The attorney <br />suggested a compensation of $50,000 for both properties however nothing was <br />received in writing. On March 14 Attorney Light asked their attorney if $50,000 <br />was her client's position and if so, whether it was a payable amount or would be <br />split evenly or portioned some other way. Her reply was it was $50,000 for both <br />properties however no apportionment was specifically discussed. He didn't <br />believe there was any clear documentation directly from the landowners. <br /> <br />Council member Keany commented on the chronology presented by Ms. Love, <br />and noted the property owners were notified in December by the contractors with <br />respect to their property. <br /> <br />Mayor Sisk explained the Finance Committee reviewed this issue in terms of <br />resolving the issue and commended Council member Van Pelt for her careful <br />and objective analysis. He reviewed the attorney's invoices, and voiced his <br />satisfaction with the analysis made by the Finance Committee. He stated it was <br />a very unfortunate set of circumstances. <br />