[1) CALL TO ORDER Mayor Joe Pitts]
[00:00:05]
BOT MARCH 23RD, 2021 SPECIAL SESSION OF THE CLARKSVILLE CITY COUNCIL IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER.
COUNCIL PERSON REDD AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE BY
COUNCILPERSON HOLLEMAN. >>> LORD THANK YOU FOR THIS DAY LORD WE JUST ASK YOU FOR OUR PRESENCE AS WE CONDUCT OUR MEETING TODAY AND LORD WE JUST PRAY THAT YOU WILL BLESS OUR CITY. IN JESUS NAME WE PRAY, AMEN.
>> AMEN. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR HIS -- FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR YOU WILL. -- FOR ALL.
>>> THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK WILL YOU PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL. MR. GARRETT.
>> MS. REYNOLDS. MISS REYNOLDS.
>> SHE IS MUTED. SHE'S STILL MUTED.
COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS YOU ARE MUTED.
>> ALL MEMBERS PRESENT OR CONNECTED.
>> THANK YOU MADAM CLERK. NEXT ITEM IS APPROVAL OF
[5) APPROVAL OF ELECTRONIC MEETING]
ELECTRONIC MEETING IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER REGARDING HOLDING OPEN MEETINGS IN A FORUM OTHER THAN IN THE OPEN AND IN PUBLIC THIS GOVERNING BODY DETERMINES A MEETING LEEKLY IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE HEALTH -- ELECTRONICALLY IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AND>> MOTION HAS BEEN PROPERLY MADE AND SECONDED.
ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING THE MOTION? HEARING NONE SEEING NONE ARE YOU READY TO VOTE.
>> MOTION IS ADOPTED. THE ONLY ITEM ON OUR AGENDA
[6) DISCUSSION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF THE RECENT MEDIATION RELATIVE TO ROBINSON V. CITY]
IS DISCUSSION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF THE RECENT MEDIATION RELATIVE TO THE ROBINSON VERSUS CITY LAWSUIT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE HERE TO DISCUSS QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE REGARDING THAT MEDIATION. SO I WILL LOOK TO THE BOARD IF THERE'S ANYONE THAT HAS A COMMENT OR A QUESTION REGARDING THE MEDIATION THAT WE JUST COMPLETED LAST WEEK.ANYBODY WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED?
COUNCIL PERSON ALLEN. >> SORRY.
>> I GOT THOSE ALLERGIES. I HAVE ONE QUESTION THAT I WAS ASKING YESTERDAY ON THE E-MAIL AND I NEVER REALLY GOT A CLEAR ANSWER. WE WERE TOLD THAT WELL, LET ME GO BACK. WHEN WE WERE IN THE ROOM IN THE CHAMBERS WE WERE TOLD SOMETHING ABOUT AN ALL OR NOTHING AND THEN LATER ON WE WERE SENT A MESSAGE FROM MR. ROBINSON THAT STATED THAT IT WAS DECIDED THAT WE WERE GOING TO DO ALL OR NOTHING IN THE SETTLEMENT.
SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT DECISION CAME
FROM? >> I CAN TELL YOU IT'S MY STANCE IF WE AGREE TO SETTLE OR IF WE OFFER A SETTLEMENT OR THEY OFFER A SETTLEMENT IT NEEDS TO BE AN ALL OR NOTHING AS FAR AS THE THREE LAWSUITS.
SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD BE PREPARED TO PRESENT TO
COUNCIL. >> OKAY, AND PRESENTING THAT TO COUNCIL, THAT IS A STANCE THAT IS YOUR STANCE.
IS IT NOT THE COUNCIL'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE THAT
DECISION? >> I SAID I WOULD PRESENT THAT TO THE COUNCIL FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
>> OKAY. SO I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW WAS IT TOLD IN THE MEDIATION THAT THE COUNCIL WAS ALL OR NOTHING? THAT WE WERE ALL OR NOTHING AS A COUNCIL VERSUS THAT'S WAS JUST YOUR PARTICULAR
STANCE. >> I DID NOT PRETEND OR TELL JUDGE BROWN, WHO HAVE THE MEDIATOR, THAT -- WHO WAS THE MEDIATOR THAT THE COUNCIL HAD AGREED IT WAS
[00:05:01]
ALL OR NOTHING. I TOLD JUDGE BROWN THAT I WOULD ONLY AGREE TO PRESENT SOMETHING TO COUNCIL IF ALL THREE LAWSUITS WERE CONSIDERED DROPPED AS APART OF ANY SETTLEMENT. IT WOULD BE UP TO THE COUNCIL THEN TO DECIDE WHETHER TO ACCEPT THAT ORNOT. >> SO IN PRESENTING TO THE COUNSELLING SILL IS THAT YOUR POWER TO BE ABLE TO SAY WHAT YOU WILL OR WILL NOT PRESENT TO THE COUNCIL.
IS THAT THE POWER OF THE MAYOR OR SHOULD EVERYTHING WHEN IT COMES TO LITIGATION BE PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL
AS A WHOLE? >> I THINK WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE ON THE BOOKS THAT SETS CERTAIN THRESHOLDS FOR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS. JUST LIKE ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT RESOLUTION UNLESS IT INVOLVED THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY OR A BUDGET AMENDMENT THEY WOULD REQUIRE AN ORDINANCE. BUT ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL CAN PRESENT FOR THE MEMBERS CONSIDERATION A SETTLEMENT
BUT WE WEREN'T IN THE ROOM TO KNOW WHAT THE SETTLEMENT OFFER WAS FOR IT TO BE PRESENTED TO US FOR US TO
KNOW. >> I'M SORRY, DIDN'T MEAN TO
INTERRUPT. >> THE JUDGE DID ASK TO MEET WITH ME AND THE ATTORNEYS AND MR. RIGGINS BECAUSE IT INVOLVED A PRIOR DISCUSSION INVOLVING GAS AND WATER.
SO I MET WITH THE MEDIATOR, THE JUDGE, AND THAT'S WHEN
WE BEGAN THE PROCESS. >> OKAY.
I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE DOES THE POWER OF THE MAYOR AS A -- BY HIMSELF TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS AND WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE DISCUSSING PRIOR TO MAKING THOSE DECISIONS BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF, WE DON'T KNOW, THAT'S THE THING.
WE DON'T KNOW WE WERE INVITED TO A MEDIATION THAT CLEARLY WE JUST SAT THERE AND WASTED OUR TIME.
IF WE WEREN'T GOING TO BE INVOLVED WHY WERE WE THERE? AND THERE WASN'T GOING TO BE A SPECIAL MEETING CALLED WHY WERE WE THERE? I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE IT
ON OUT. >> IS THAT A QUESTION?
>> THAT IS A QUESTION. >> QUESTION FOR ME WOULD BE I ASKED MR. BAKER TO INVITE THE COUNCIL TO BE THERE, IT NOT A SPECIAL SESSION BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY CREDIBLE LEGITIMATE OFFER ON THE TABLE FOR US TO VOTE ON OR TO CONSIDER AND SO THERE WAS NO -- WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GET PROPER NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC THAT WE WERE VOTING ON ANYTHING SPECIFIC. SO THAT'S WHY A SPECIAL SESSION WAS NOT CALLED. YOU WERE INVITED TO BE THERE BECAUSE THE OTHER SIDE FRANKLY HAS SAID WE'RE TRYING TO HIDE THINGS FROM THE COUNCIL AND WE'RE NOT.
WE WANTED YOU TO BE THERE. THE LAST MEDIATION THAT WAS HELD LAST YEAR I FELT THAT WAS A WASTE OF TIME.
BUT NEVERTHELESS, IT'S JUST PART OF THE PROCESS.
>> MAYOR I HAVE A QUESTION. >> I GOT YOU ON THE LISTS.
>> I'M THE FIRST ON THE LIST, RIGHT.
>> WELL, YOU'RE FIRST ON MY WRITTEN LIST.
COUNCILPERSON ALLEN. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW. >> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILPERSON GARRETT YOU ARE RECOGNIZED THEN I WILL COME TO YOU COUNCILPERSON SMITH.
>> I JUST WANT TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING FROM YOU AND WE BROUGHT UP THE INITIAL MEDIATION ATTEMPT THAT ENDED UP BEING A FAILED ATTEMPT.
PARTLY BECAUSE LIKE THE JUDGE REFERENCED WE WERE LIKE A BUNCH OF MUSHROOMS JUST LEFT IN THE DARK AND ABANDONED. IF WE KIND OF KNEW THAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF THE INITIAL MEDIATION AND THE COUNCIL HAS EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN BEING INVOLVED AT THE NEGOTIATION TABLE, I GUESS WHY WOULDN'T WE HAVE DONE A SPECIAL CALLED SESSION TO ENABLE US TO BE IN THE NEGOTIATION ROOM SO THAT WE CAN DELIBERATE, HEAR THEIR OFFER, MAYBE TALK AMONGST OURSELVES AND THEN COME UP WITH MAYBE OUR OWN COUNTEROFFER, YOU KNOW, UNITED AS A BODY VERSUS, YOU KNOW, JUST HAVING THE ALL OR NOTHING APPROACH AND WE'RE JUST HEARING ABOUT IT ON THE BACK END AND IN JEOPARDY OF, YOU KNOW, OPEN MEETING
VIOLATIONS? >> WELL, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAVE TO GIVE PROPER NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC IF WE'RE VOTING ON SOMETHING THERE WOULD BE SOMETHING SPECIFIC MENTIONED. SO THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC SETTLEMENT ON THE TABLE. IT WAS MERELY IDEAS AND THOUGHTS THEY OPENED WITH A GAMBIT OF $1.2 MILLION THEY WOULD DROP TWO OF THE LAWSUITS.
THEN THERE WAS VARIOUS OTHER DETAILS.
WE'VE LEARNED FROM THE PAST THAT WHEN YOU FINALLY GET IT INTO WRITING SOMETIMES THE OTHER PARTY BACKS OUT.
SO THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T CALL A SPECIAL SESSION.
THERE WAS NO CREDIBLE WRITTEN OFFER.
I DON'T WANT TO ASK THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER ANYTHING UNLESS IT'S IN WRITTEN BECAUSE IT COULD -- IT'S IN WRITING BECAUSE IT COULD CHANGE.
THAT WAS MY DECISION. >> I GOT YOU.
I GUESS I SOMEWHAT UNDERSTAND THAT RATIONALE IT'S JUST LIKE HOW WE'VE DISCUSSED OTHER THINGS AND HAD DISCUSSIONS WHEN THERE WASN'T ANYTHING NECESSARILY IN WRITING FOR US TO VOTE ON AT THIS TIME BUT WE'VE
[00:10:01]
DISCUSSED PICKING APART THE CHARTER OR WE DISCUSS THE BUDGET PROCESS IN THEORY, YOU KNOW, IT'S A WORKING THROUGH PROCESS. THERE'S NOT A SET BUDGET THAT WE'RE VOTING ON BECAUSE IT'S SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON INPUT THAT DIFFERENT COUNCIL PERSONS PUT IN THERE. SO I THINK IF WE WOULD HAVE CONDUCTED THAT MORE LIKE A WORKING SESSION OR DISCUSSION IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NOTICED TO THE PUBLIC THAT HEY, WE'RE DISCUSSING THE SETTLEMENT AND IT GIVES ALL OF US AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHIME IN, ASK QUESTIONS AND MAYBE GET US TO ASK QUESTIONSES AND PUT THIS TO BED. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ME PERSONALLY, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO MEET AS A BODY.WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO DO IT OVER THERE.
WE WOULD QUITE FRANKLY HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED SESSION WHERE WE INVITE THEM WE'RE SITTING IN OUR SEATS.
WE CAN HAVE THE TELEVISIONS BLARING AND HAVE OUR OWN JUDGE JOE BROWN, JUDGE JUDY-TYPE OF SESSION IN HERE.
THE PUBLIC IS ABLE TO SEE WHAT'S BEING NEGOTIATED ON THEIR BEHALF WITH THE TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND HEAR BOTH SIDES OF THE CASE. THEN AS THE ELECTED OFFICIALS, YOU KNOW, WE MAKE THE DECISION ON WHETHER WE WANT TO SETTLE OR WHETHER WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO BATTLE
IT OUT IN THE COURT. >> RIGHT.
>> SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD BE OPEN TO IN A SPECIAL CALLED SESSION VERSUS TRYING TO TACIT ONTO MAYBE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION WHEN WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, OTHER MATTERS OF CITY BUSINESS TO WHERE WE CAN JUST IRON IT OUT AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COUNCIL TO BE INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSION WITH, I GUESS THE
PLAINTIFF IN THIS INSTANCE. >> WELL, I WOULD BE A LITTLE RETICENT TO JUST GET INTO AN OPEN FORUM WITH THE OTHER PARTY, THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS CASE BECAUSE ULTIMATELY WE'LL HAVE TO BOIL IT DOWN INTO WRITING FOR US TO BRING BACK PUT IT IN ORDINANCE FORM IF IT REQUIRES A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY, AGAIN, OR A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE FINANCIAL OBLIGATION OR RESOLUTION, WHICH IS ONE READING.
BUT I WOULD PREFER IT BE IN WRITING SO EVERYBODY IS LOOKING AND UNDERSTANDING THE VERY SAME THING.
>> I THINK THOUGH TO GET US TO THE MEETING OF MINDS TO PUT IT IN WRITING THAT DISCOURSE MAY NEED TO TAKE PLACE TO WHERE WE TALK ABOUT IT IN A SPECIAL CALLED SESSION. WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO VOTE ON A DECISION RIGHT THEN AND THERE.
>> THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT? IF YOU WANT HAVE YOU AN IDEA THROW IT OUT THERE.
>> WITH THE OTHER PARTY WE CAN GO BACK AND FORTH GIVEN THIS OPPORTUNITY TO BE APART OF A MEDIATION ATTEMPT AND COME UP WITH A SOLUTION TO WHERE IT'S LIKE CAN YOU LIVE WITH THIS CAN WE LIVE WITH THIS OKAY, WE'RE CALL ANOTHER CISION OR TACIT ON WITH THE EXECUTIVE AT THAT POINT IF WE'VE GOT THE BASIS OF THE AGREEMENT DOWN VERBALLY NOW WE'VE GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT IT IN WRITING AND PUT IT BEFORE US.
WE CAN EVEN AT THE EXECUTIVE SESSION HAVE MR. BAKER OR IF HE NEEDS TO STEP ASIDE BECAUSE OF ANY TYPE OF CONFLICTS HAVE MR. SOLOMON COME IN HERE AND BREAK IT ON DOWN FOR US. THEN WE VOTE ON IT A WEEK LATER AT THE REGULAR SESSION.
>> WELL, I'VE LEARNED LET ME JUST SAY, FOR THIS, I'VE LEARNED THAT YOU KNOW TALKING TO THE PLAINTIFF ABOUT A SETTLEMENT IS ONE THING BUT REDUCING THAT IT CONVERSATION TO WRITING IS VASTLY DIFFERENT AND IT HASN'T YIELDED SO FAR AN AGREEMENT THAT ANYBODY CAN LIVE WITH. EITHER THE ONE PARTY OR THE OTHER. SO I WOULD BE A LITTLE RETICENT TO GET INTO AN OPEN FOR UNL.
WE GO BACK AND FORTH -- FORUM.
WE GO BACK AND FORTH WE AS ONE SIDE SIT DOWN AND DISCUSS WHAT THE ISSUES ARE, THEY AS ONE SIDE SAY WE DON'T LIKE THAT BUT WE DON'T GET INTO A ROOM TOGETHER.
THAT TO ME HASN'T BEEN FRUITFUL.
>> EVEN IF WE DON'T GET IN A ROOM TOGETHER WE DO IT TO WHERE MAYBE THEY'RE ACROSS THE STREET YOU KNOW AND TREATED LIKE A PUBLIC PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION WHERE THEY CAN SAY THEIR PIECE WE CAN SAY OURS.
WE WILL GO TO ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE MODE WE CAN ASK OUR ATTORNEY ANY QUESTIONS WE NEED THEN WE CAN COME BACK TO THEM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO PITCH BASED ON WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.
LIKE I SAID WE'RE IN THE MOMENT, YOU KNOW.
SOMETIMES IT'S A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO -- THAN JUST HANDING PAPERS BACK AND FORTH WITHOUT COMING TO A
MEETING OF THE MINDS FIRST. >> WELL, I UNDERSTAND.
I PREFER TO SEE IT IN WRITING.
IT'S MY PREFERENCE. >> I GOTCHA.
>> NOW, IF MAYBE THE BULK OF THE COUNCIL WERE INTERESTED IN ATTEMPTING THAT, BECAUSE WE'VE TRIED THE OTHER BEFORE, BUT THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING NEW.
[00:15:02]
SO IF THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL WERE WILLING TO EXPLORE THAT OPTION WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO ALLOW TO US DO THAT IN A SPECIAL CALLED SESSION.>> AS YOU KNOW SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL CAN CALL A SPECIAL SESSION. SO WE CAN CALL A SPECIAL SESSION. YOU WOULD HAVE TO STATE WHAT THE PURPOSE IS AND GIVE PROPER NOTICE AND FOLLOW ALL THOSE RULES AND LAWS. SO IT'S NOT A MATTER OF WHETHER I SUPPORT IT IT'S A MATTER OF YOU KNOW AS LONG AS YOU MEET THE LETTER OF THE LAW.
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE A FOLLOW UP THEN I GUESS FROM MR. BAKER IN THAT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING WE CAN'T NECESSARILY DICTATE THE AGENDA OF THE SPECIAL CALLED SESSION. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO WITH THE SPECIAL CALLED SESSION. DOES IT TAKE SEVEN MEMBERS TO RESPOND TO AN E-MAIL TO SAY THAT LIKE I DITTO.
IF I SEND AN E-MAIL TO EVERYBODY SAYING I WOULD LIKE A SPECIAL CALLED SESSION AT, YOU KNOW, THAT SETS UP A MEDIATION HOW I DESCRIBED EARLIER IN THIS CONVERSATION AND SEVEN MEMBERS SAY BASICALLY DITTO I'M WITH THAT, DOES THAT ENABLE IT TO BE PUT ON THE SPECIAL CALLED AGENDA AND FUNCTION THAT WAY?
>> MR. BAKER. >> I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES. THE ONLY QUALM I HAVE ABOUT IT IS SEVEN MEMBERS CAN CALL A SPECIAL CALLED SESSION I HAVE SENT YOU ALL AN ATTORNEY E-MAIL ABOUT HOW THAT PROCESS WORKS FOR SEVEN MEMBERS TO CALL A SPECIAL CALLED SESSION ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT THE MAYOR AGREEING TO IT. UNDER THE PUBLIC OR OPEN MEETINGS ACT, OF COURSE YOU GOT TO GIVE NOTICE AND PART OF THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT IS IT'S GOT TO INCLUDE WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING AND WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE VOTING ON IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A VOTE AS OPPOSED TO JUST A DISCUSSION.
MY CONCERN IN ALL THIS HAS BEEN THAT IF YOU'RE VOTING ON A SETTLEMENT YOU COULD SAY THIS IS ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT. YOU COULD LIST ALL THREE CASES. THAT MAY BE GOOD ENOUGH BUT I CAN'T GUARANTEE IT. BECAUSE IT COULD BE THAT THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW UNDER THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY VOTING ON.
THAT'S WHERE THE MAYOR IS TALKING ABOUT AN ACTUAL WRITTEN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
WHICH COULD EASILY BE ACCOMPLISHED IF EITHER THE CITY PRESENTS A WRITTEN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OR ATTACHES IT TO THE NOTICE AND THEN Y'ALL COULD DEBATE ON WHETHER TO APPROVE THAT. IF YOU APPROVED IT THEN I WOULD ACTUALLY SEND IT TO MR. OLSON.
ANOTHER POSSIBILITIES IF HE WERE TO SENT US A WRITTEN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND Y'ALL IF HE SENT IT I WOULD ACTUALLY PUT IT ON A REGULAR SESSION EXECUTIVE SESSION AND AGENDA AND -- BUT YOU COULD ALSO SEVEN MEMBERS YOU COULD ALSO CALL FOR A SPECIAL CALLED SESSION TO CONSIDER THAT AS WELL. SO, YES, YOU CAN DO IT.
I THINK IT'S BETTER TO VOTE ON AN ACTUAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. BUT I BELIEVE YOU COULD ALSO JUST PUT THE THREE DIFFERENT LAWSUITS AND SAY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE -- WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER TO SETTLE AND UPON WHAT TERMS. BUT MY CONCERN IS THAT COULD OPEN UP AND THERE'S ANY NUMBER OF PEOPLE FRANKLY I MEAN LET'S JUST SPEAK FRANKLY. PROBABLY ANY NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE WILLING TO FILE AN OPENINGS MEETING ACT LAWSUIT IF THEY THOUGHT THAT ANY SUPPLEMENT PATROL OR ANY SETTLEMENT THAT'S MADE WAS NOT A GOOD ONE.
THEY COULD FILE A LAWSUIT. THEN ON THE OTHER HAND ANYBODY THAT WE SHOULD SETTLE AND YOU DECIDED NOT TO OR YOU VOTED ON SOMETHING LESS THAN WHAT THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD FILE A LAWSUIT. SO THERE'S A RISK EITHER
WAY. >> I GUESS I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT'S AN OPENINGS MEETING ACT IF THE NATURE OF IT IS SETTLEMENT OF THE ROBINSON LAWSUITS.
WE CAN SAY IT'S ALL GOOD. IT'S A DISCUSSION NOT A DECISION AND WE'RE DISCUSSING THE OPTIONS
IN THE OPEN EVERYBODY CAN SEE RIGHT.
AND BASED ON OUR DISCUSSION A DOCUMENT IS NOW PUT TOGETHER AND PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR US TO VOTE ON AT THE NEXT EXECUTIVE TO GO THROUGH AGAIN AT THE EXECUTIVE AND IN THE REGULAR.
I JUST DON'T SEE WHERE THAT'S AN OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING TO DISCLOSE IT.
THIS IS KIND OF WHAT I EXPECTED WAS GOING TO HAPPEN TONIGHT. IS Y'ALL GOING TO DISCUSS
[00:20:03]
HEY, WHAT SHOULD WE DO BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING IT IN THE OPEN IT'S NOT ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.YOU'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT HERE TONIGHT WHAT PROPOSAL, IF ANY, WHAT SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL SHOULD WE SEND TO THEM. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW I DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A WRITTEN ONE FROM THEM.
NOT A FULL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
I SUSPECT THAT MR. OLSON FROM THE COMMUNICATIONS I'VE SEEN IN THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY I CAN'T HARDLY KEEP UP WITH THEM ALL.
IT SOUNDED LIKE IN ONE OF THEM I SAW THAT HE INTENDS TO SEND ONE THAT'S BASED OFF THE ONE WE SENT TO THEM BACK LAST SUMMER. THE MURPHY SETTLEMENT DOCS.
BUT YOU CAN TALK TONIGHT AND SAY OKAY, WELL, THIS IS WHAT I THINK WE SHOULD DO. LET'S JUST USE A HYPOTHETICAL. I THINK WE SHOULD OFFER TO DO THE PROJECT WE TALKED ABOUT.
THE ENGINEERING PROJECT AND I THINK WE SHOULD AGREE TO REIMBURSE HIM UP TO $250,000 BUT WE SHOULD ONLY AGREE TO DO THAT IF THEY ARE WILLING TO DISMISS ALL THREE LAWSUITS. SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT SAY WELL, ACTUALLY WHAT I THINK WE SHOULD DO IS WE SHOULD DO THE ENGINEERING PROJECT AND PAY THEM $350,000 AND IN ORDER TO DO SOMETHING TO DISMISS THE OTHER TWO LAWSUITS NOT JUST THE FEDERAL LAWSUIT, WE SHOULD PAY THEM $1.2 MILLION. Y'ALL CAN TALK ABOUT TONIGHT THE MONEY TERMS AND WHAT LAWSUITS YOU'RE WILLING TO DISMISS. YOU CAN TALK ABOUT THE TERMS WITH REGARD, THE ENGINEERING PROJECT DEALING WITH THE STORM WATER. Y'ALL CAN THEN FRANKLY, ANY SINGLE MEMBER CAN SEND ME AN E-MAIL SAYING OKAY I WANT YOU TO TAKE THE MURPHY SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS WHICH IS COMPLETE SETTLEMENT AND TAKE THIS PART OUT OR ADD THIS PART IN OR CHANGE THE AMOUNT TO THIS.
OR I WANT YOU TO JUST SAY SETTLE THE FEDERAL LAWSUIT OR I WANT YOU TO MAKE IT ALL THREE LAWSUITS.
YOU CAN SEND ME AN E-MAIL AND WE'LL GET IT ON EXECUTIVE SESSION THEN FOR REGULAR SESSION AND YOU CAN VOTE ON IT. BUT TONIGHT WHAT I WAS EXPECTING IS Y'ALL TO KIND OF DEBATE AMONGST YOURSELF AND SEE IF THERE CAN BE A CONSENSUS DEVELOP ABOUT WHAT YOU ALL WANT TO DO. SO WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING THAT PROCESSIS BELIEVE YOU'RE EXACTLY CORRECT THAT YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
TALK ABOUT WHAT TO DO AND THEN EITHER WE GET SOMETHING FROM THEM AND WE PUT IT ON THE AGENDA AND Y'ALL CAN VOTE ON IT OR Y'ALL CAN VOTE ON A SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL THAT WE SEND TO THEM. BUT IT'S UP TO YOU ALL.
>> THANK YOU, MR. BAKER. >> I YIELD MY TIME TO LET SOME OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS GET IT IN.
I HAVE A FEW MORE REMARKS LATER ON.
>> WE WILL ADHERE TO OUR TWO COMMENTS PER PERSON PER MEMBER. SO COUNCILPERSON SMITH YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.
I JUST WANT TO PUT A PROPOSAL ON THE FLOOR AND LET US DISCUSS IT AND THEY CAN SAY WHAT THEY WANT.
YOU KNOW EACH MEMBER HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, YOU KNOW, YEA OR NAY BASED UPON THE PROPOSAL THAT I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE TO MAKE A SETTLEMENT FOR ALL THREE LAWSUITS.
I WILL MAKE A PROPOSAL THAT WE WILL SETTLE ALL THREE LAWSUITS FOR THE AMOUNT OF $275,000.
AND THEN I WOULD LIKE FOR EACH FOR MEMBER TO SAY YEA OR NAY IF THAT WOULD BE GOOD OR NOT.
LET'S MAKE A PROPOSAL AND LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY THINK. >> OKAY COUNCILPERSON SMITH HAS THROWN THE IDEA OUT THAT WE WOULD SETTLE FOR $275,000. DOES THAT INCLUDE SEE THIS IS WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE TRICKY.
BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT PACKED INSIDE OF THIS.
DOES THIS INCLUDE THE ENGINEERING PROJECT? OR IS IT JUST STRICTLY CASH? I MEAN THERE'S JUST A LOT.
>> I MEAN, MAYOR, WHAT I'M SAYING IS TO SETTLE ALL LAWSUITS AND THIS WAS JUST CLEAR THE RECORD.
CLEAR THE RECORD. CLEAR THE RECORD, YOU KNOW.
SO WE BE BICKERING BACK AND FORTH.
BECAUSE I SEE THERE WAS A $30,000 PROPOSAL FROM MR. BAKER. AND THAT WAS REJECTED.
SO I'M JUST SAYING $2S 75,000 SEEM TO ME -- $275,000 SEEM TO ME TO BE A GOOD IDEA TO SETTLE THE LAWSUITS ALL THREE OF THEM AND THIS SHOULD END THE WHOLE CASE ALL CASES. CLOSE THEM OUT.
>> OKAY. I'VE GOT SEVERAL PEOPLE OTHE LI.
IF YOU CHOOSE TO COMMENT ON COUNCILPERSON SMITH'S IDEA
[00:25:05]
YOU ARE WELCOME TO DO THAT. OR YOU CAN JUST -- PLEASE>> I HAVE COUNCILPERSON ALLEN NEXT YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED. >> WE KEEP SAYING ENGINEERING PROJECT. I ASKED MR. RIGGINS TO BE HERE SO HE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AND THE THINGS THAT WILL NEED TO BE DONE IN THE ALLEY ANYWAY.
MR. RIGGINS COULD YOU COME UP AND TELL US KIND OF SOME OF THINGS YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT.
>> WE WILL GO OUT OF SESSION TO HEAR FROM MR. RIGGINS.
IF YOU WOULD -- THAT'S OKAY. MR. RIGGINS IF YOU WOULD JUST GIVE US A THUMBNAIL OF THAT ENGINEERING PROJECT.
>> YES, SIR. >> SO, FIRST I WANT TO START OFF BY SAYING AS EVERYTHING SITS CURRENTLY RIGHT THIS MOMENT WE HAVE A SEWER PIPE THAT IS OVER ON PART OF THE FSC PROPERTIES. ACCORDING TO COURT DOCUMENTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE WE ARE ALLOWED TO BE THERE FOR A PREVIOUS COURT RULING AND ALSO MR. ROBINSON HASES A SITE PLAN THAT IS APPROVED FOR A BUILDING TO BUILD RIGHT UP TO THAT SEWER LINE. AS IT SITS RIGHT NOW I BELIEVE THE CITY HAS AGREED THAT SEWER LINE CAN BE THERE AND AND THE COURT HAS AGREED THAT SEWER LINE CAN BE THERE. I CAN LIVE WITH THAT THE CITY CAN LIVE WITH THAT AND MR. ROBINSON CAN BUILD RIGHT UP TO IT AS IT SITS RIGHT NOW.
THAT IS POSSIBLE. BEYOND THAT, I WILL SAY IF HE MY RATHERS I WOULD RATHER NOT A BUILDING BE LOCATED RIGHT UP AGAINST MY SEWER MAIN.
THAT'S WHY I SPOKE WITH THE MAYOR EARLY ON I DON'T KNOW HOW EARLY ON BUT A WHILE BACK ABOUT WOULD HE MIND IF I MEET WITH MR. ROBINSON. LOOK THERE IS A PLAN I BELIEVE THAT COULD RESOLVE AT LEAST THAT PORTION.
I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE LAWSUIT THAT PLAYS OUT HOWEVER IT PLAYS OUT. BUT WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE I WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE THAT BUILDING UP AGAINST MY SEWER MAIN AND I'M SURE HE WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE THAT EITHER. SO MAYOR ALLOWED ME TO DO THAT AND I WAS CORRECT. SO WHAT WE SPOKE ABOUT IS AN ENGINEERING PROJECT THAT IN LAND SWAPS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT I'LL TRY TO DO MY BEST TO DESCRIBE.
THE ENGINEERING PROJECT AS THE PIPE SITS RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO MANHOLE ON THE END OF IT WHICH IS NOT GOOD FOR GAS AND WATER. WE NEED A MANHOLE IN ORDER TO ACCESS THAT. WHAT THE ENGINEERING PROJECT DOES THROUGH A CONSULTANT OF OURS THAT DESIGNED THAT IT WAS ALSO THE CONSULTANT WHO DESIGNED THE SITE PLAN FOR MR. ROBINSON. SO THEY WERE WORKING IN TANDEM WITH BOTH GROUPS. THAT LINE WOULD BE EXTENDED AND THEN A STORM DRAIN OR A CATCH BASIN BE PUT INSTALLED AT THE END OF THAT. SO NOT ONLY WOULD IT SOLVE MY PROBLEM WITH THE SEWER, ACCORDING TO THE WHOLE PLAN IT WOULD DIRECT THE FLOW OF THE STORM WATERS DOWN THE ALLEY OR CITY PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE ROBINSON PROPERTY SOME OF THE ROOF DRAINS AND THE BACK PORTION OF THOSE THAT THEY'RE NOT LOOKING TO DEVELOP ONLY COVER WITH CONCRETE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IT WOULD ALL BE DIRECTED THROUGH SOME TYPE OF SURFACE MATERIAL, PROBABLY CONCRETE, COULD BE ASPHALT, I SUPPOSE.
RETAINING WALLS THE EXTENSION OF THAT PIPE.
SO THEN WE GOT INTO OKAY, WHAT WOULD BE MY RESPONSIBILITY IF YOU AGREED WHAT WOULD BE MY RESPONSIBILITY OR THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY ULTIMATELY AND THEN WHAT WOULD BE ROBINSON'S RESPONSIBILITY.
SO IN THE END, WELL, THROUGHOUT WE BOTH AGREED THAT INITIALLY BUYER CONSTRUCTION DID THE PIPELINE PROJECT FOR THE CITY.
THEY WERE LOW BID WON THE BID AND DID THE WORK.
BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRAINTS OF THAT ALI AND THE UTILITIES UNDER THAT -- ALLEY AND THE UTILITIES UNDER THAT SURFACE IT'S OUR OPINION THAT BUYER CONSTRUCTION NEEDS TO BE THE ONE THAT NEEDS TO GO BACK IN THERE. I CANNOT DICTATE THAT BEING PART OF THE CITY. I HAVE TO PUT THAT OUT FOR BID LOW BIDDER. BUT WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT IS MR. ROBINSON CAN CHOOSE TO USE WHOEVER HE SO -- WHOEVER HE CHOOSES. HE CONFIRMED HE WOULD CHOOSE TO PICK BUYER CONSTRUCTION ULTIMATELY BRAD PAT WAS THE PROJECT MANAGER. WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WAS GAS AND WATER OR THE CITY THROUGH OTHER TALKS WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AND BRAD AS I WAS MENTIONING WE WOULD PAY UP TO $2S 50,000 FOR THE PIPE -- $250,000 FOR THE PIPE ON THAT PROJECT AND FOR ALL THE MATERIALS AND THE LABOR INVOLVED ON THAT AND RETAINING WALLS THAT DIRECT THAT FLOODING UP TO THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE AND AGAIN, I TOOK THAT MY ENGINEERING TEAM TOOK THOSE PORTIONS OF THAT PROJECT TO BRAD AND SAID WE NEED AN ESTIMATE. HE SAID IT COULD COST UP TO
[00:30:01]
$250,000. SO WHAT WE VERBALIZED WAS I WOULD AGREE TO PAY UP TO $250,000 THEY SUBMIT INVOICES THAT AS BYARD CONSTRUCTION COMPLETES THAT WORK THEY WOULD SUBMIT INVOICES FOR ME TO REIMBURSE THEM FOR UP TO $250. MEANING IF IT WOUND UP COSTING $150,000 THAT'S ALL THEY'RE GOING TO GET ME.IF IT WOUND UP COSTING $275,000 THEY'RE ONLY GOING TO GET $250,000. ALSOES IN THAT, THAT THE CITY OWNED TRACT OF PROPERTY WE WOULD YOU, PART OF THE AGREEMENT IF YOU SO APPROVED, THAT WOULD REVERT TO THE ROBINSONS WOULD NOW OWN THAT TRACT WE WOULD RETAIN THE ENTIRE TRACT AS AN EASEMENT. BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY UTILITIES IN THERE, THAT'S WHAT WE DO AS YOU WILL SEE AND HAVE ALREADY SEEN WITH ANY ABANDONMENT BASICALLY THAT WE HAVE NOW OF RIGHT OF WAY OR CITY PROPERTY WHERE THERE ARE UTILITIES THERE. I'M ALWAYS GOING TO ASK YOU TO RETAIN THAT AS AN EASEMENT OR AT LEAST THE PORTION THAT I AM UNDER. SO THAT PARCEL WOULD GO TO THE ROBINSONS. THEY WOULD GIVE A FIVE FOOT EASEMENT ON THE SIDE OF THEIR EXISTING TRACK AND NOT BUILD WITH THEM IN ORDER FOR THE EXISTING PIPE THAT'S IN ADDITION TO THE $1.9 GNAT COURT HAS ALREADY GRANTED.
THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IT'S NOT AN ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET.
1.9 WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT FIVE FEET.
IT WOULD GO THAT'S ONE THING THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE DRAWINGS THE SKETCH THAT YOU HAVE SEEN.
THE SKETCH HAS NOT BEEN DONE YOU WILL SEE A TURN IN THAT PIPE. WE HAVE VERBALIZED THAT EASEMENT WILL NEED TO FOLLOW THAT TURN AND THEN GO ALL THE WAY AROUND THE STORM DRAIN AT THE END OF IT.
THEY WOULD GRANT THAT TO THITY AND ALSO GRANT TO US A PARTIAL PROPERTY OVERALL HIGH POINT ROW THEY CALL IT RIGHT OF WAY. THAT WOULD BE FOR FUTURE ACCESS FOR THE CITY FOR VALLEY BROOK PARK THINGS LIKE THAT. WHATEVER THE CITY DEEMED NECESSARY ON THAT TRACK THEY WOULD ALSO RETAIN AN EASEMENT FOR AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO SOME CONDOS OR APARTMENTS OR WHATEVER IS THERE.
I WILL SAY ON THAT FIVE FEET ANOTHER THINGS THAT WE SPOKE ABOUT THAT I DON'T KNOW HAS BEEN QUITE EXPLAINED I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET ON THE ROBINSON PROPERTY. THEY'VE ALSO AGREED THEY DON'T NEED TO BUILD WITHIN THAT FIVE FOOT ANY WAY.
REASON BEING IF YOU NOTICE ON THE PLAN THERE IS A DUMPSTER PAD AT THE VERY BACK OF THE PROPERTY.
I NEED THE FIVE FEET OR I WOULD LIKE THE FIVE FEET SO HE DOES NOT BUILD RIGHT UP TO THE SEWER LINE HE WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE THAT FIVE FEET OPEN BECAUSE YOU CANNOT ACCESS, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN MY OPINION YOU CAN ACCESS THAT DUMPSTER WITH A GARBAGE TRUCK IN A 10 FOOT ALLEY BUT YOU CAN IN A 15. IN A NUTSHELL I DON'T THINK
I HAVE LEFT ANYTHING OUT. >> COUNCILPERSON ALLEN.
>> THE SWAPPING OF LAND IS THAT EQUITABLE DOLLARWISE? LIKE THE LAND HE'S GETTING AND THE LAND WE WOULD BE GETTING AND THE EASEMENT ON THIS END IS IT EQUITABLE
DOLLARWISE. >> I'M NOT AN APPRAISER.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR HIM, MAYOR.
>> OKAY I'VE GOT YOU ON THE LIST.
>> THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN FIND OUT IF THAT LAND IS EQUITABLE IN MAKING THESE
DECISIONS? >> WELL, WE WOULD HAVE TO DO AN APPRAISAL WHICH TAKES A LITTLE TIME IN THIS MARKET TO GET AN APPRAISAL. IT WOULD TAKE TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE WEEKS AND COST SOME MONEY TO GET AN
THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS YES WE CAN THE COMPLICATED ANSWER
>> THE ONLY THING IF I MAY, THE ONLY THING I KNOW THAT I CAN REMEMBER THAT HAS BEEN APPRAISED OR HAS A VALUE TO IT IS THAT 1.9 FEET THAT THE JUDGE AWORDED US TO THE TUNE OF $8900 SOMETHING LIKE THAT. $8335.
I BELIEVE THAT NUMBER CAME FROM AN APPRAISAL THAT THEIR EXPERT OFFERED, THAT ROBINSON'S EXPERT OFFERED.
>> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE COUNCILPERSON RICK. OH, I'M SORRY.
ARE YOU THROUGH WITH MR. RIGGINS.
YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. >> SO, MY NEXT QUESTION IS I KNOW WE'RE SAYING ALL OR NOTHING CONTINUOUSLY AND I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN SAY THIS IN THIS MEETING BECAUSE IT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE ATTORNEY TOLD US, BUT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD WHAT THE EXPECTED OUTCOMES ARE FOR THE FIRST CASES AND THE THIRD CASE.
IF THOSE ARE THE EXPECTED OUTCOMES WHY ARE WE FOCUSING ON THOSE AND NOT FOCUSING ON SOMETHING THAT IS IN THE MOMENT RIGHT NOW AND WE CAN DO SOMETHING THAT WILL ESSENTIALLY BRIDGE A GAP THAT MR. ROBINSON NEEDS AND
[00:35:02]
OUR CITY NEEDS AND WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOMES OF THOSE CASES ARE GOING TO BE.IF WE'RE PREDICTING, OKAY. I THINK THAT THIS LAWSUIT THESE THREE LAWSUITS HAVE GAINED A LOT OF TRACTION IN OUR CITY AND I THINK THAT WE ARE, WE ARE PUTTING SO MUCH EMPHASIS INTO THESE THREE CASES THAT THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER THINGS THAT OUR CITY NEEDS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF.
IF WE KNOW THE OUTCOMES OF THESE TWO CASES, AND WE WERE TOLD 100% SURE THAT THIS WOULD BE THE OUTCOME.
NOT 100%. I WOULD SAY BECAUSE THEY SAID NOT 100%. I WILL SAY 95% WHY ARE WE FOCUSING ON TRYING TO GET ALL THREE OF THEM?
>> IS THAT A QUESTION FOR? >> I DON'T KNOW WHO WOULD
ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> MR. BAKER YOU WANT TO
TAKE A STAB AT IT? >> LITIGATION IS ALWAYS UNCERTAIN I HAVE TOLD THE COUNCIL ALL THE COUNCIL THAT THE WHOLE TIME I HAVE BEEN CITY ATTORNEY.
THERE'S ALWAYS RISK. YOU CAN NEVER TOTALLY DISMISS THE RISK. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THEY COULD WIN THE APPEAL IN THE FIRST CASE.
I DON'T, I STRONGLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT WILL HAPPEN BUT I DON'T GUARANTEE IT WON'T. THE SECOND CASE, THE FEDERAL CASE IS IN MY VIEW THE LEGAL OPINION AND YOU HEARD MR. MCMANUS YOU HEARD MR. GOODSON TELL YOU WE BELIEVE IT'S A COMPLETE REHASHING OF THE FIRST LAWSUIT AND WE THINK ULTIMATELY THAT THE JUDGE WILL GRANT OUR RULE 12 MOTION TO DISMISS THAT LAWSUIT WHICH IS PENDING OR AT THE VERY LEAST THAT SHE WILL ISSUE AN ORDER HOLDING THAT CASE IN ABEYANCE, MEANING JUST WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING WITH THIS CASE UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST STATE COURT CASE.
IF THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST STATE COURT CASE, IF THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIAL COURT ARE UPHELD ON APPEAL, THEN THAT CASE WILL BE CONCLUDED AND THIS DOCTRINE OF THE LAW WILL APPLY. MEANING THAT THAT'S A FINAL DECISION AND YOU DON'T GET TO RELITIGATE NOW IN THE FEDERAL COURT WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN THE STATE COURT. BUT IT'S NOT A FINAL DECISION YET BECAUSE THE APPEAL IS STILL PENDING.
THEN OF COURSE THE THIRD LAWSUIT IT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FIRST TWO LAWSUITS BECAUSE THE THIRD ONE DEALSES WITH OPEN MEETINGS ACT ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND THE OPEN RECORDS ACT.
IT'S NEVER BEEN SAID THAT YOU HAVE TO -- THAT ANY SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL HAS TO INVOLVE THE DISMISSAL OF ALL THREE CASES. THAT'S JUST WHAT MY STRONG ADVICE IS THAT IF YOU WANT TO TRY TO BUY PEACE YOU NEED TO GET PEACE AND MEANS DISMISSAL OF ALL THREE LAWSUITS. BUT ONE MORE COUNCILMAN COULD SAY WELL, I JUST WANT TO FOCUS ON THE ONE CASE.
I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT WITH REGARD TO THE FEDERAL COURT LAWSUIT IT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME TO SAY WELL, LET'S PAY THEM A BUNCH OF MONEY TO SETTLE THAT LAWSUIT THEN WE'RE STILL LEFT WITH FIGHTING ANOTHER TWO LAWSUITS, ESPECIALLIES WHEN WE STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT -- ESPECIALLY WHEN WE STRONGLY BELIEVE THEY'RE REALLY NOT GIVING UP ANYTHING WITH REGARDS TO THE FEDERAL LAWSUIT BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT THAT LAWSUIT WILL EVENTUALLY BE DISMISSED.
I SAY THAT BECAUSE I MAKE NO GUARANTEE OF THAT.
YOU SAID 100% THEN YOU SAY OKAY, 95% OR 90% WHATEVER YOU SAID. LITIGATION IS ALWAYS UNCERTAIN. THERE'S ALWAYS RISK.
BUT IT'S ENTIRELY UP TO Y'ALL ABOUT WHETHER YOU WANT TO HAVE A SETTLEMENT INVOLVING ONE LAWSUIT OR ALL THREE OR MAYBE JUST THE FIRST TWO.
MY ADVICE IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO SETTLE WE NEED TO GET ALL
OF THEM DISMISSED. >> WELL, THIS IS MY LAST STATEMENT. I THINK THAT AND I DON'T THINK THAT -- I'M GOOD, YEAH.
I THINK THAT IN LISTENING TO WHAT MR. RIGGINS HAD TO SAY THERE IS WORK THAT IS GOING TO BE NEEDING TO BE DONE IN THIS ALLEY. AT THE END OF THE DAY IF THE CITY CAN'T, IF THE CITY CANNOT SAY OKAY THIS IS THE PERSON WE NEED TO DO IT AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.
I THINK IT WOULD BENEFIT THE CITY TO ESTABLISH THAT PARTNERSHIP WITH MR. ROBINSON SO THAT WE CAN GET THE WORK WE NEED DONE IN THAT ALLEY AND HE CAN GET THE WORK DONE IN THAT ALLEY AND HE CAN GET IT DONE AT THE PRICES THAT WE HAVE, WE KNOW FOR SURE THAT IT GENERALLY WOULD TAKE. BECAUSE ALL THAT APPRAISALS AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT FOR THAT SPECIFIC PIECE HAS BEEN DONE. I THINK THAT IT IS A TRUE OPTION TO TRULY LOOK AT SO THAT WE CAN GET THE WORK DONE THAT THIS CITY NEEDS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON ALLEN.
[00:40:02]
COUNCILPERSON SMITH YOU HAD A QUESTION FOR MR. RIGGINS.>> I JUST HAVE A STATEMENT. I THINK IT'S KIND OF BEENENCED JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT MR. RIGGINS SAID. HE SAID THAT WHATEVER MR. ROBINSON PLANS ON GETTING DONE IN THAT ALLEY AS FAR AS THE RETAINER WALL AND PIPES THE CITY WOULD REIMBURSE HIM. I DID HEAR HIM CORRECTLY?
>> YOU HEARD HIM SAY THAT THE CITY WOULD REIMBURSE UP
TO NOT TO EXCEED $250,000. >> UH-HUH.
SO I KNOW YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE ENGINEERING RESPONSIBILITY WHEN I BROUGHT UP YOU KNOW THE $275,000 AS A PROPOSAL TO TAKE CARE OF THE THREE LAWSUITS. WE'RE GETTING YOU TURNED UP.
>> OKAY. SO I WAS JUST SAYING YOU KNOW BASED ON THAT PROPOSAL I KNOW YOU SAID SOMETHING MAYOR ABOUT THE ENGINEER PROCESS.
IF WE'RE GOING TO REIMBURSE HIM ANYWAY I DON'T SEE HOW THAT WOULD PLAY INTO MAKING AN IMPACT ON THE $270,000 THAT WE'RE GIVING HIM IF WE'RE GOING TO PAY HIM THAT ANYWAY. WE'RE GOING TO PAY HIM BACK EVEN THOUGH HE HAS HAD HIS CONSTRUCTION PEOPLE TO DO THE JOB THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THE ALLEY.
IF WE'RE GOING TO REIMBURSE HIM WHAT HE PAYS OUT UP TO $250,000 I DON'T THINK IT HAS A BEARING ON THE $275,000 THAT I HAD PROPOSED FOR US TO PAY HIM FOR THE
>> I JUST WANTED TO ADD SOMETHING FOR COUNCIL.
DON'T FORGET THAT THEY DID WIN ONE CLAIM GOT THE $8,335 JUDGMENT JURY VERDICT AND WE HAVE TO PAY THAT.
AND THEN WE WERE ORDERED TO PAY $30,000 IN A TOTAL ATTORNEY FEES AND PARALEGAL FEES.
BUT THEN THEIR AMOUNT SO THAT WAS $38,000 BASICALLY.
BUT THEN THAT AMOUNT WAS REDUCED BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY OWED US MONEY IN DISCRETIONARY COSTS.
SO THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT WAS OWED FROM THE FIRST LAWSUIT IN THE TRIAL COURT ACTION WAS $29,000 AND CHANGE.
WE'VE ALREADY SENT THEM A CHECK FOR THAT AMOUNT.
SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND. >> OKAY.
THANK YOU MR. BAKER. WE HAVE COUNSELPERSON.
>> MAYOR HOW DO WE GET ON THE LIST.
YOU WILL HAVE TO SPEAK UP I CAN'T SEE THE CHAT FROM HERE. I WILL PUT YOU ON THE LIST.
>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. >> COUNCIL PIRN REDD YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU RECOGNIZED -- THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WAS LISTENING TO SOME OF THE CONVERSATION AND THE IDEA I THINK OF HAVING 12 COUNCILMEMBERS THERE DURING SOME TYPE OF ARBITRATION OR SETTLEMENTS ALONG WITH THE MAYOR TO HAVE 13 PEOPLE FIXING TO NEGOTIATE I THINK THAT WOULD BE UNPRECEDENTED AND A COURSE UNWISE TO HAVE ALL OF US THERE.
I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THAT HAPPENING BEFORE NOT JUST WITH THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE OR ANYWHERE COUNCILMEMBERS WERE THERE WITH THE ATTORNEY DURING THIS TYPE OF SETTLE THINGS. I CAN'T IMAGINE 13 OF US.
IT MAY BE, I READ THE CODE WRONG OR I'M REMEMBERING WRONG OR WHAT NOT, BUT AS THE BEST I CAN REMEMBER THE CODE SAYS THAT THE MAYOR IS TO TAKE THE LEGAL THINGS WE HAVE A CITY ATTORNEY THAT'S SUPPOSED TO DO THAT.
THE CITY ATTORNEY IS SUPPOSED TO NEGOTIATE THESE THINGS FOR US. I WOULDN'T ENVISION MYSELF ON OTHER SUITS THAT WE HAVE TOWARD THE CITY SITTING THERE NEXT TO LANCE BAKER TRYING TO GIVE HIM INPUT OF WHAT I THINK ABOUT WHENEVER WE'RE IN COURT OR IN ANY TYPE OF LEGAL PROCEDURES. BUT.
AFTER I THINK THE JOB OF THE COUNCIL IS AFTER THESE PROPOSALS COME BACK TO US AT THAT TIME WE CAN LOOK AT IT AND LET ME REMIND YOU WE CAN AMEND IT.
WHATEVER COMES BACK TO US WE DON'T HAVE TO SAY YES OR NO THERE'S ALSO THE AMENDMENT. WE'VE BEEN TEAGUE ABOUT SETTLE ALL TWO OR ALL THREE. WE WOULD DO THAT AT THE TIME WHENEVER THIS IS IN THE FORM OF AN ORDINANCE.
YOU CAN DECIDE YOU MIGHT WANT TO RAISE THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT LOWER IT OR WHAT NOT. BUT THE DISCUSSION PART I THINK IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO HAVE 13 PEOPLE THERE.
I THINK THAT QUITE FRANKLY I DON'T KNOW WHOSE SIDE ALL 12
[00:45:07]
OF THE MEMBERS WE HAVE ON THE COUNCIL MIGHT BE ON.THAT WOULDN'T BE A SAFE THING TO SAY.
I REMEMBER WE HAD THERE WERE PUBLISHED REPORTS OF A COUNCILMEMBER THAT BROKE THE SUNSHINE LAW THAT WAS CALLING OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS TRYING TO PERSUADE THEM TO SETTLE THIS. I THINK AT THAT TIME IT WAS $1.2 MILLION THE AMOUNT THAT WE HAD JUST LIKE MR. BAKER JUST SAID I THINK IT ENDED UP BEING THE TOTAL AMOUNT WAS $38,000 AFTER IT WAS SAID AND DONE ON THAT PART.
BUT THE FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US I THINK IT WOULD BE UNWISE AS WELL TO TRY TO SETTLE THIS UNTIL WE FIND OUT UNDER, I THINK IT'S CALLED RULE 12, WHETHER OR NOT THIS JUDGE WILL EVEN TAKE THIS UP.
IF HE DECIDES TO WE CAN GO AT THAT TIME.
IF HE DOESN'T -- THEY WOULD LIKE TO NEGOTIATE.
I THINK THE OTHER SIDE WOULD LIKE TO NEGOTIATE THIS WAY TO HAVE ALL OF US THERE MAYBE IN A VERY LOOSELY FORMATTED-TYPE MEETING TO FIGHT BACK AND FORTH.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE WRONG. I'VE GOT TWO QUESTIONS FOR THE COUNCIL THAT WOULD BE FIRST, IF SOMEONE ON THE COUNCIL LET'S SAY THEY WERE USING THE SAME ATTORNEY AS MR. ROBINSON OR THEIR SPOUSE IS USING THAT ATTORNEY, LET'S SAY IF MY WIFE WAS USING THIS ATTORNEY IN AN ONGOING LEGAL MATTER SHOULD I HAVE TO ABSTAIN WOULD THAT
BE A CONFLICT FOR MYSELF? >> IS THAT A QUESTION COUNCILPERSON REDD DIRECTED AT OUR LEGAL COUNCIL.
>> MR. BAKER. >> I'VE GOT TWO QUESTIONS.
>> OKAY. >> THAT'S A QUESTION ANY SUCH COUNCILMEMBER WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER FOR THEMSELVES AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER THEY SHOULD ABSTAIN.
GIVEN THE NECESSARYO ARE -- SCENARIO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE THAT SOMEONE COULD SEE THAT AS AN ETHICAL VIOLATION OR JUST A CONFLICT OR SOMETHING THAT THEY DON'T AGREE WITH.
BUT IT'S NOT FOR ME TO TELL COUNCILMEMBERS WHAT DECISIONS TO MAKE AS TO WHETHER THEY NEED TO ABSTAIN OR NOT. ALL I CAN DO IS GIVE ADVICE ABOUT THE POSSIBILITIES THAT YOU MAY OPEN YOURSELF UP TO
SHOULD YOU NOT ABSTAIN. >> I GOT ONE MORE QUESTION.
>> IF WE HAD ONE OR MORE COUNCILMEMBERS THAT WERE IT WAS FOUND OUT LATER THAT THEY IN FACT WERE NOT LIVING IN THEIR WARD AND THEY VOTED ON THIS, THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN JUST SPENDING MONEY ON A SIDEWALK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THIS IS A LEGAL DISPUTE AND THE WAY THAT IT COULD TURN OUT HOW COULD THAT -- HOW COULD THAT AFFECT US IN THE FUTURE ON ANY TYPE OF STREET CAN COME UP IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL IF NOT ONLY LEGAL SUITS BUT
OTHER ITEMS AS WELL? >> SO I'M SPEAKING GENERALLY AND I'M SPEAKING HYPOTHETICALLY HERE.
IF A COUNCILMEMBER WAS NOT LIVING IN THEIR WARD AND THEY WERE IN VIOLATION OF THE CHARTER AND THERE WAS A VOTE ON ANY LEGISLATION, SETTLEMENT, ZONING, WHATEVER, AND THERE WAS A ONE VOTE MARGIN OF VICTORY OR PASSAGE, APPROVAL, THEN ANYONE WHO DISAGREED WITH THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF LEGISLATION AND MAYBE DIDN'T WANT IT TO PASS COULD FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY SAYING THAT THE VOTE WAS AN ULTRA VIRES ACT BECAUSE ONE OF THE MEMBERS WAS NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED TO HOLD OFFICE AT THE TIME THEY VOTED. THE SAME THING CAN HAPPEN IF THERE'S A TIE VOTE AND THIS, THIS MEMBER WAS ONE OF THE VOTES THAT CAST A VOTE THAT CREATED THE TIE.
SO IN EITHER WAY ONE VOTE PASSAGE OR TIE VOTE WHERE THIS MEMBER WOULD ONE OF THEIR THEIR VOTES WAS ONE OF THE ONES THAT CREATED THE TIE.
IT COULD CREATE LEGAL PROBLEMS FOR THE CITY.
IT COULD GET US SUED IT AND COULD CAUSE THE IF THE LEGISLATION FAILED, SOMEBODY WHO WANTED IT TO PASS,
[00:50:01]
PARTICULARLY IN A ZONING CASE, THEY COULD SUE US AND SAY THAT PERSON NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE THEY SHOULDN'T VOTE THIS HAS TO BE OVERTURNED. SAME THING IF SOMETHING PASSED THEY WERE IN THE MAJORITY BUT IT PASSED BY A SINGLE VOTE. IT COULD CREATE LEGALPROBLEMS. >> COUNCILMEMBERS REDD YOU
HAVE THE FLOOR. >> YES, SIR, I JUST WANTED TO SAY I HAVE ANOTHER MEETING THAT I HAVE TO ATTEND AT 7:00. I'M NOT STORMING OUT OR ANYTHING. I JUST HAVE THAT MEETING TO ATTEND TO. THAT'S WHY I WAS KIND OF LENGTHY IN MY ONE TIME OUT OF THE TWO.
SO I DON'T NEED TO USE THE TWO.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON ALDRIDGE. WE APPRECIATE THE REFERENCE.
COUNCILPERSON BUTLER YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> I WILL HIT MY BUTTON A LOT SOONER NEXT TIME, THANK YOU, MAYOR. THE FIRST THING THAT I HAVE IS A POINT OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
>> I WAS JUST WONDERING I KNOW THAT ROBERT'S RULES IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE FLOW OF A MEETING BUT IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE UTILIZED. I'M NOT SAYING PURPOSELY I'M JUST SAYING GENERAL UTILIZED TO HALT SAY, YOU KNOW, LEGITIMATE DISCUSSION. SO I WAS WONDERING BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A VOTING SESSION IS THE TWO TIMES RULE THING IS THAT STILL PARLIAMENTARY DEMAND?
>> YES. AND THE REASON WHY THE REQUIREMENT TO USE ROBERTS RULES IS ACTUALLY LAW IT'S WRITTEN INTO OUR CITY CODE. AND SO ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE IN ROBERTS RULES IS ACTUALLY LAW.
THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS ARE THINGS THAT HAVE -- THAT ARE IN THE CITY CODE YOU KNOW THINGS LIKE THE READ RULE, THINGS ABOUT WHO CAN SPEAK ON ZONING CASES.
THERE ARE THINGS WRITTEN INTO OUR PROCEDURES IN THE CITY CODE THAT ARE EXCEPTIONS TO ROBERTS RULE.
AND THE CHARTER ALLOWS YOU TO DO THAT.
BUT IT ALSO SAYS THAT UNLESS THERE'S BEEN AN EXCEPTION YOU KNOW APPROVED BY ORN OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOU HAVE TO -- ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE ROBERTS RULES WHICH INCLUDE THE TWO YOU GET TO
SPEAK TWICE AND THAT'S IT. >> THAT'S FINE IF THAT WAS AN ISSUE I'LL ADDRESS IT LATER.
HOWEVER, THAT I MEANS I GOT A COUPLE THINGS.
LORD, WHERE TO BEGIN. SO, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IS THAT BECAUSE WE ARE ALL NEW AND BECAUSE WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DIFFERENT ORDINANCES COMING UP AND PEOPLE WANT TO DO LEGISLATION ETC., ETC., WE NEVER, FIRST OF ALL, I WILL HARP ON THIS UNTIL THE END OF DAYS WE NEVER GOT ORIENTATION FROM M-IT'S LIKE FORMALLY SO -- M-TESS LIKE FORMALLY SO THAT HAS BEEN PROBLEMATIC. WHEN WE CAME INTO THIS IS FOR FUTURE REFERENCE. WHEN WE CAME INTO OFFICE WE HAD NO CLUE WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THIS CASE.
OF COURSE I'M REFERING TO THE NEW ONES OF US.
THERE NEEDED TO BE A TIME WHEN WE SAT DOWN AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET ALL THE QUESTIONS.
BECAUSE NOW ALL THAT'S HAPPENED IS THIS CASE HAS BEEN GOING ON ALL THESE YEARS.
THERE'S ALREADY ANIMOSITY, THERE'S ALREADY STRESS, THERE'S ALREADY I MEAN IT'S A COURT CASE, ALL OF THAT IS BOUND TO BE THERE. THERE'S STRATEGY BEING EMPLOYED HERE. THERE'S STRATEGY BEING EMPLOYED HERE IN LIKE DIVIDE AND CONQUER TACTICS, ETC., ETC. SO YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TONIGHT IS A LONG TIME COMING AND THE FACT THAT IT TOOK US SO LONG TO GET TO THAT POINT HAS REALLY CAUSED A LOT OF THESE RIFTS.
IT'S JUST REALLY PRECIPITATED AND AN EVEN WORSE SITUATION THAN NEEDED TO BE.
THAT BEING SAID, BECAUSE WE WEREN'T AROUND, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THE OTHER MEDIATIONS WENT.
BUT I PERSONALLY SAT DOWN READ ALL OF THE CASE, ALL THE PAPERWORK I LISTENED TO ALL THE E-MAILS I SAT DOWN WITH YOU MR. BAKER AND TWO OR THREE OCCASIONS AND I'VE MADE A DECISION. I HAVE A DECISION MADE BUT IT WOULDN'T HURT TO HAVE SAT DOWN IS IT THE PLAINTIFF, THE OTHER SIDE? YOU KNOW.
IT WOULDN'T HAVE HURT TO SIT DOWN WITH THEM AND HEAR AT LEAST WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. BECAUSE I DON'T DO THAT OUTSIDE OF HERE BECAUSE THAT'S -- I KNOW WHAT TEAM I'M ON I'M ON THE CITY'S TEAM YOU KNOW.
I CAN'T REALLY JUST GO SIT DOWN AND TALK TO THEM, YOU KNOW, IN A RESTAURANT ON THE SIDE WITHOUT IT LOOKING
[00:55:04]
SHADY. SO I DO THINK THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE IT AND WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE THAT KIND OF A SITUATION.EVEN IF IT WASN'T A VOTING SESSION BUT JUST A SENSING SESSION OR WHAT NOT. AND I THINK THAT THESE THINGS HAVE PUT US IN THE POSITION THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW WHICH IS LIKE JUST A LOT OF, A LOT OF EH.
LET ME GO THROUGH MY NOTES HERE, I'M SORRY.
I COVERED A LOT OF IT. I APPRECIATE THAT -- I APPRECIATE WHAT IS GOING ON WITH MR. RIGGINS AND THAT.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS ROBINSON IS A DOWNTOWN BUSINESS OWNER AND WE -- ALL OF US HAVE TO CONTINUE WORKING TOGETHER AND WE ALSO HAVE TO CONTINUE, YOU KNOW, LIVINGS CITIZENS IN THE SAME CITY.
SO THE EFFORT THAT YOU PUT IN SPECIFICALLY TO THE OLIVE BRANCH EXTENDING THE OLIVE BRANCH I PERSONALLY REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. BECAUSE AT THIS POINT WE HAVE TO BE DOING THAT. I'M SORRY.
BEAR WITH ME. I COVERED ALMOST ALL OF THAT. SWEET.
I DO NOT APPRECIATE THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER ASKING WHAT SIDE WE'RE ON AGAIN THAT KIND OF JUST TACKS ONTO WHAT I'VE ALREADY SAID. A LOT OF LINES ARE BEING DRAWN. ASSUMPTIONS ARE BEING MADE AND THINGS LIKE THAT JUST BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THIS SUBJECT. I DO KNOW WHAT SIDE I'M ON.
I AM A REPRESENTATIVE OF WARD 12 AND WHAT IS GOOD FOR WARD 12 AND WHAT IS GOOD FOR CLARKSVILLE IS WHAT I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR BASED ON MY CONSCIENCE AND THE FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO ME.
I DID HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHY WE DIDN'T, WHY WE WEREN'T IN THAT ROOM, WHY WE HAVEN'T DONE A SITDOWN WITH THEM BUT I THINK THAT'S A HORSE THAT'S BEEN BEAT TO DEATH.
I AM IN SUPPORT, IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE WANTED TO DO TO HAVE A SPECIAL SESSION WHERE WE CAN LISTEN AT LEAST TO WHAT THE OTHER SIDE HAS TO SAY IN THE PRESENCE OF OUR LEGAL TEAM AS WELL.
THEN I AGREE THAT WE WANTED THE DISCUSSION BEFORE.
YOU GUYS ARE A LOT FARTHER ALONG THAN US NEW PEOPLE ARE. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE READY FOR THE PAPERWORK. IT'S BEEN FOUR YEARS.
BUT US COMING INTO IT LIKE BRAND NEW IT'S KIND OF LIKE I NEED THE DISCUSSION BEFORE I DECIDE BEFORE I CAN WRITE MY SUGGESTION FOR A STATEMENT OR SETTLEMENT RATHER. I COVERED ALL THAT.
AND I COVERED ALL THAT. I THINK I COVERED EVERYTHING. THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO PERSONALLY ADDRESS, AGAIN THIS IS AFTER READING ALL OF THE CASE STUFF YOU KNOW I HAVE A NUMBER IN MY HEAD. I THINK THAT WHEN MR. RIGGINS IS TALKING ABOUT THAT THING IF THAT HAS TO BE INCLUDED IN OKAY, COOL. I'M NOT -- THIS IS KIND OF A QUESTION FOR YOU. DOES THAT NEED TO BE IN THE SETTLEMENT OR CAN THAT BE A SEPARATE ISSUE? ALTHOUGH I KNOW THAT THE WAY THIS COURT CASE TURNS OUT COULD AFFECT THAT. IS THAT WHY WE WANT IT IN
THE SETTLEMENT? >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
THE ANSWER IS WHAT WE'VE ALL BEEN REFERRING TO AS THE ENGINEERING PROJECT THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE APART OF THE SETTLEMENT, OKAY. THAT WAS THE BASIS OF SOME NEGOTIATIONS TO TRY TO BRIDGE THE GAP, ALL RIGHT.
>> OLIVE BRANCH. >> I WOULDN'T CHARACTERIZE AN OLIVE BRANCH SO MUCH AS IT WAS A RECOGNITION THAT THERE ARE -- THERE IS SOME WORK THAT WOULD BE OF BENEFIT TO THE CITY IN THE SO-CALLED ALLEY THAT WOULD ALSO BE OF BENEFIT TO MR. ROBINSON, ALL RIGHT.
IT WAS A BASIS FOR CONDUCTING NEGOTIATIONS.
WE ACTUALLY SENT A FORMAL PROPOSAL WITH REGARD TO THAT ENGINEERING PROJECT AND DISMISSAL OF THE TWO LAWSUITS. THE THIRD ONE HAD NOT YET BEEN FILED AND THEY REJECTED IT.
SO YOU COULD, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, ANY SINGLE MEMBER COULD PRESENT A SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL, YOU CAN HAVE ME DRAFT IT THAT BASICALLY SAYS OKAY I WANT -- DON'T CARE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT ENGINEERING PROJECT I JUST WANT TO PAY A FLAT NUMBER TO SETTLE THE FIRST LAWSUIT OR THE SECOND OR THE THIRD OR THE FIRST TWO, OR ALL THREE.
I DON'T EVEN CARE ABOUT THE ENGINEERING PROJECT.
FOR EXAMPLE, YOU COULD SAY OKAY I WANT YOU TO WRITE UP A SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL THEY DISMISS ALL THREE LAWSUITS
[01:00:03]
FOR SAY $300,000. WE WOULD SAY NOTHING IN THE SETTLEMENT PAPERS ABOUT THE ENGINEERING PROJECT.MY SUGGESTION TO YOU IS THAT'S LIKELY TO GO NOWHERE BECAUSE THE ENGINEERING PROJECT IS THE ONE THING THAT THERE'S SOME COMMON GROUND ON.
>> OKAY. TO CLOSE OUT MY FIRST TIME, I DO WANT TO MAKE CLEAR TO MY COLLEAGUES HERE WHERE I STAND ON THIS SUBJECT AFTER EVERYTHING WE'VE BEEN THROUGH UP TO THIS POINT AND WHERE I AM NOW.
IT IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO MORE INFORMATION OR FUTURE EVIDENCE, ALL RIGHT. SO I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, PUTTING THIS IN STONE OR ANYTHING.
BUT HERE'S WHERE I'M AT RIGHT NOW GUYS.
ONE CASE HAS ALREADY BEEN SETTLED.
THE FEDERAL CASE IS THE EXACT SAME THING.
WE NEED TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE STATE CASE RIGHT NOW BEFORE WE MAKE ANY MOVES ON THE FEDERAL CASE.
THAT IS MY OPINION. THAT SAID, I GUESS MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE ALL THREE.
I KNOW WE VOCALIZED TONIGHT THAT WE'RE NOT FANS OF ALL OR NOTHING. I KIND OF AM BECAUSE WE REALLY DO NEED TO MOVE FORWARD FROM THIS.
WITH THE $250,000 MR. RIGGINS IS THAT THE RIGHT NUMBER? WITH THE $250,000 AND THE $275,000 THAT COUNCILMEMBER -- CAN I SPECIFY HER SINCE.
>> DON'T CALL NAMES PLEASE. >> THE PREVIOUS PERSON WHO SUGGESTED $275,000 I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ADD THE $275 WITH THE $250 AND THE ENGINEERING PRODUCT AND I'M GOING TO SAY THAT FOR ALL OF IT BECAUSE AGAIN I DO THINK THAT THE FIRST CASE IS ALREADY BEEN SETTLED.
I WOULD SAY MATH. $225,000 FOR THE WHOLE KITTEN KABOODLE. I'M GOING TO EXPLAIN WHY.
-- $225 FOR THE WHOLE KITTEN KABOODLE.
>> SOME -- $525,000. >> WE PUT A PIPE WHERE THE PIPE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN BUT TO BE HONEST WITH YOU I'M NOT SEEING A WHOLE LOT ELSE THAT NEEDS TO BE PAID OUT HERE. SO I'M GOING TO AGREE WITH THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER WITH THE $275.
THAT AND THE $250 FOR THE PROJECT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD SUPPORT FUTURISTICLY AND WITH THAT I YIELD MY TIME. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON BUTLER EVANS, THEN TO
COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.
OH MY GOSH, SORRY MY MASK IS STUCK IN MY EAR.
SO I ALSO HAD COMMENTS ABOUT SUGGESTING A SETTLEMENT I WAS THINKING ALONG THE NUMBER AS LIKE THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS HOWEVER, I DO THINK THAT AN ALLEY SHOULD BE BUILT JUST OUT OF SAFETY. WE'VE SEEN FROM THE FIRE THAT HAPPENED A COUPLE WEEKS AGO AND THE STATEMENTS FROM THE I FORGET IF IT WAS A FIRE CHIEF OR FIREFIGHTER THAT WAS OUT THERE ANYBODY CAN CLARIFY WHO KNOWS.
THAT IT WOULD HAVE HELPED SUBSTANTIALLY TO GET THAT
FIRE OUT. >> WELL, LET ME PAUSE YOU RIGHT THERE AND CLARIFY. WE DID NOT SAY THAT.
THAT WAS CONJECTURE ON THE PART OF THE PLAINTIFF THAT THE FIRE CHIEF HAS MADE PLAIN THAT WE WOULD EVEN IF AN ALLEY WERE PAVED WITH GOLD BACK THERE WE WOULDN'T PULL A FIRE TRUCK BACK THERE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE IN THE COLLAPSE OR FALL ZONE ENDANGERING EQUIPMENT AND PEOPLE. SO LET ME JUST KIND OF
CORRECT THAT. >> THAT'S MY MISTAKE.
>> THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME INTERRUPT.
THEN I AGREE WITH THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER.
I THINK THAT THE $250 CAP FOR THE ENGINEERING PROJECT AND $275,000 SETTLEMENT IS FAIR.
I YIELD MY TIME. >> THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON
EVANS. >> COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FINALLY. >> THAT'S FINE THANK YOU.
I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO ECHO WHAT THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID MAYOR. A LITTLE BIT OF OUR FRUSTRATION OF NEW PEOPLE IS OUR ABILITY TO COLLABORATE
[01:05:03]
AND GET INFORMATION AND BE TOTALLY TRANSPARENT AND PREPARED FOR MEETINGS. IT IS A STRUGGLE AND LAST WEEK'S MEETING AND NOT BEING ABLE TO EVEN DISCUSS IT WHETHER WE WERE GOING TO VOTE ON IT OR NOT WAS PERSONALLY A LITTLE FRUSTRATING FOR ME AS WELL.I JUST ADD THAT FOR FUTURE PLANNING.
IF CALL WE WOULD LIKE WHATEVER IT TAKES TO BE ABLE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS CORRECTLY AND LEGALLY.
WITH THAT SAID, I WOULD ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS BUT I PROBABLY WOULD NOT GO SO HIGH. I WOULD PROBABLY HAVE STARTED WITH I BELIEVE THE PREVIOUS SETTLEMENTS WERE IN THREE PARTS THAT WE PAID UP TO $250,000 FOR THE ALLEY WAY AND THAT GAS AND WATER HAD FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT TO ENSURE THAT IT WAS TO STANDARD.
WE WOULD PAY UP TO $250. BUT IF IT WAS LESS THAN 250 WE WOULD PAY LESS THAN 250. SO IN THE SETTLEMENT I WOULD WANT TO MIRROR WHAT WE HAD DONE BEFORE.
THEN I WOULD CASH OUT AT $150 TO SETTLE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WE'RE ALMOST AT THE END OF THIS LAWSUIT BUT IF WE COULD SETTLE IT AND REALLY SPIN IT OURSELVES I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE COME OUT AND SHOW THE COMMUNITY THAT WE REALLY ARE TRYING TO SETTLE THIS AND PROMOTE OUR SETTLEMENT OFFER WILL GO A LONG WAY INSTEAD OF PLAYING DEFENSE. SO I WOULD SUPPORT THOSE AMOUNTS BUT I WOULD PROBABLY NOT INITIALLY OFFER $275 I WOULD BE $150 OR $200. BUT I WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THREE CASES WERE GONE AT THAT TIME AND I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR MR. RIGGINS.
I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE I'M ENVISIONING THE PROJECT CORRECTLY. BUT IS THERE A WALK BEHIND PATH BEHIND THE ALLEY TO COME FROM THE PARKING LOT INTO THAT BACK AREA? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WE'VE MADE AN ALLEY THROUGH ONE OF THE BUILDINGS.
AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE LEAVING A PATHWAY. IT'S PROBABLY SEPARATED IT HAS BEEN A WHILE SINCE I WALKED IT.
>> MR. RIGGINS. >> IT IS SEPARATE.
>> THE ENGINEER PLAN THAT WE HAVE DOES NOT IDENTIFY OR DESIGNATE ANY PART OF THAT. IT MAY BE PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR ALL I KNOW. BUT THE PLAN DOES NOT, THAT PATH OR ALLEY IS NOT WITHIN THE PLAN.
>> OKAY. I JUST, I JUST COULDN'T ENVISION IT. THANK YOU, SIR.
SO I BELIEVE MR. BAKER THAT WHEN WE HAD OFFERED THE $690,000 OFFER I THINK BEFORE THE COURT CASE IT WAS TO END EVERYTHING IT AND KIND OF SEPARATED OUT THE PROJECT THE ENGINEERING PROJECT AND THE ALLEY WAY FROM THE OTHER ITEMS. SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO THAT. IF IT COMES UNDER $250 I WOULD WANT TO PAY MORE THAN THAT.
DID I MAKE THAT CLEAR? >> YES, DID YOU.
>> THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILPERSON --
>> I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE $650,000 PREVIOUS SETTLEMENT OFFER THAT WAS QUITE SOMETIME AGO THAT WAS JUST TO SETTLE THE FIRST STATE COURT ACTION THAT WAS MADE BEFORE THERE WERE THE OTHER TWO LAWSUITS.
IT WAS $650 AND NOT $690. THERE WERE NO OTHER LAWSUITS.
>> OKAY. I MEANT MOSTLY DID THEY SEPARATE OUT THE ALLEY. DID IT SEPARATE OUT THE
ALLEY PROJECT? >> THERE WAS NO ENGINEERING
PROJECT BACK THEN. >> OH, I SEE.
>> IT WAS JUST GOING TO BE STRAIGHT $650,000 TO SETTLE
I SEE AND I WOULD SAY AT THIS POINT THAT I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO THAT TYPE OF SETTLEMENT THAT I WOULD WANT TO MAINTAIN GAS AND WATER CONTROL OVER THE ALLEY WAY PROJECT IF THAT'S WHAT WE GO TO I WOULD WANT TO HAVE THAT LIKE SEPARATE SETTLEMENTS. BUT I DO AGREE THAT EVERYTHING GOES AWAY IF THERE IS ANY CASH OFFERED ABOVE AND BEYOND THE AMOUNT TO FIX THE ALLEY WAY.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON KNIGHT YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. OKAY BEFORE YOU MOVE WHAT IS THE POINT? --
[01:10:14]
>> CAN YOU SAY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>> I THINK -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO CHANGE NOW SO LET'S STICK WITH THE TWO.
>> WELL, ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION BUT I WOULD WANT US TO STICK TO THE TWO TIMES IN THE DEBATE OR DISCUSSION HOWEVER YOU WANT TO REFER TO IT.
COUNCILPERSON KNIGHT YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I DON'T BELIEVE WE SHOULD BE LINING ANYONE'S POCKET AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE TO BE QUITE HONEST WITH YOU. BUT IF WE ARE TO SETTLE I THINK THAT THE PREVIOUS SPEAK HER THE RIGHT IDEA OF SETTLING FOR THE PREVIOUS AMOUNT AND PROBABLY NOT STARTING AT AN AMOUNT THAT HIGH BETWEEN $150,000 $200,000. AND ALL OR NOTHING BUT HERE WE ARE DELIBERATING OR DISCUSSING OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE OTHER PARTY WILL ACCEPT ANY SETTLEMENT OFFER THAT WE COME TO TODAY? SO THAT'S THE ISSUE. THE ISSUE IS WE CAN DISCUSS ALL DAY, WE CAN PUT STUFF ON PAPER ALL DAY BUT WILL THEY ACCEPT IT? THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON GARRETT YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR THE SECOND TIME.
>> LAST BITE OF THE APPLE. I GUESS YOU KNOW A PREVIOUS SPEAKER KIND OF ALLUDED TO IT A LITTLE BIT WHEN I WAS TRYING TO MAKE EARLIER IN THAT WE WON'T KNOW IF THE OTHER PARTY WOULD ACCEPT IF IT WE COME UP WITH CONSENSUS PUT IT IN WRITING AND SEND IT OVER.
BUT IF IT WAS MORE OF A DISCUSSION GOING BACK AND FORTH WE WOULD QUICKLY KNOW, YOU KNOW, HOW FAR APART WE ARE AND EVEN IF IT'S WORTH SETTLING.
IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.
I APPLAUD MY FELL LOW COUNCILMEMBERS IN KIND OF PUTTING SOME THOUGHTS TO IT THE EVALUATION AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE HISTORY AND OTHER OFFERS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED PREVIOUSLY. I THINK THAT AS IT PERTAINS TO THE FEDERAL LAWSUIT YOU KNOW WE DISCUSSED SOME OPTIONS AND SOME ESTIMATED COST OF APPROXIMATELY $250,000 GIVE OR TAKE TO WE'LL JUST CALL IT THE SWAPPING OF THE PROPERTY WE'LL CALL IT THE PROJECT.
IF THAT'S THE ESTIMATE THAT WE'RE BEING GIVEN AND WORKING OFF OF WHEN WE LOOK AT JUST THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE SPENT SO FAR DEFENDING THIS IN THE STATE CASE I THINK IT'S KIND OF SAFE TO SURMISE THAT WE WOULD DEFINITELY SPEND OVER $50,000 FIGHTING THIS ON A FEDERAL CASE. SO I HAD SEEN THOUGH WE'VE ALL RECEIVED THE E-MAIL OF KIND OF A DRAFT, A BULLET POINT VERSION OF WHAT THIS SETTLEMENT WOULD LOOK LIKE FROM THE PLAINTIFF IN THAT $300,000 WOULD SETTLE THE FEDERAL CASE. THERE THE A FIGURE THROWN THROUGHOUT ON WHERE HE WAS AT FOR SETTLING THE STATE CASE WHICH IS REALLY FAR OFF FROM WHERE WE'RE AT IN TERMS OF THE STATE HE HAD $850,000 COMPARED TO I'VE HEARD KIND OF NOTHING LET'S FIGHT IT. WE'VE ALREADY WON BEFORE.
I'VE HEARD $150,000, I BELIEVE I HAVE HEARD MAYBE $275,000 FOR IT. SO WE'RE DEFINITELY TOO FAR APART I THINK TO SETTLE THIS STATE CASE THE WE'VE GOT SO MUCH INVESTED IN IT THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO JUST HAVE TO GO FORWARD AND BE DECIDED AND ADJUDICATED BY A JUDGE AND SETTLED THAT WAY.
IN TERMS OF THE FEDERAL CASE IF WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY THOUGH WHEN WE LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF LEGAL FEES THAT WE SPENT THUS FAR ON THE STATE CASE DO WE REALLY WANT TO CONTINUE TO FIGHT THAT WHEN WE'RE ALREADY AT AN ESTIMATE OF $250,000 JUST IN TERMS OF THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED.
WE'RE ONLY TALKING $50,000. HERE WE ARE WITH AN OPPORTUNITY LIKE WE WERE I DONE FORGOT THE YEAR WHERE IT ORIGINATED WHERE WE COULD HAVE SETTLED IT FOR $3,000 AND BUILDING IN THE ALLEY. OR DO WE WANT TO LOOK FIVE
[01:15:01]
TO SEVEN YEARS FROM NOW NOW WE'RE IN THE $2.SOMETHING MILLION. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT FROM AT LEAST SETTLE THE FEDERAL PERSPECTIVE GET THAT ONE OVER DONE WITH WE'RE IN AGREEMENT $250,000 OR SOMEWHAT YOU KNOW $250 K TO YOU KNOW ADDRESS THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED SO WE CAN MOVE ON AS A BUSINESS VENTURE THAT EXTRA $50,000 JUST TO SQUASH IT.THAT'S A DROP IN THE BUCKET AS IT PERTAINS TO POTENTIAL TAX INCREASES AND IMPACT IT HAS ON OUR CITIZENS IN CONTRAST WITH GOING UP LIKE WE ARE IN ON THE STATE CASE AND BEING AT $1.4 MILLION. THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION.
I GET THAT THE CONCEPT AND THE THEORY BEHIND ALL OR NOTHING. SOMETIMES IT'S BETTER TO TAKE SOMETHING THAN NOTHING THOUGH.
I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE MY FELL LOW COUNCILMEMBERS AT THE LEAST MAYBE STOP THE BLEEDING THAT COULD POTENTIALLY HAPPEN ON THE FEDERAL SIDE AND WE'LL JUST KIND OF SEE WHAT HAPPENS, YOU KNOW, ON THE STATESIDE
OF THINGS. >> MAYOR I WOULD LIKE TO BE
PUT ON THE LIST AGAIN. >> YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR SECOND TIME COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS.
>> I WOULD JUST THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER I WOULD LIKE TO AS A WOMAN WHO BARTERS OVER A QUARTER AT THE YARD SALE SUGGEST THAT WE FIRST, THAT WE SHOW OUR WILLINGNESS TO HAVE A CONVERSATION AND THAT WE GO OUT FIRST WITH AN ALL OR NOTHING AND THEN THEN HAVE THEM COME BACK AND TELL US OTHERWISE. WE'RE KIND OF ASSUMING YOU CAN ALWAYS GO HIGHER BUT YOU CAN'T GO LOWER.
THAT'S WHY I WOULD ALWAYS START LOWER.
BUT I STILL BELIEVE THAT OUR COST IS IN THE COURT CASES.
IF I'M GOING TO PAY CASH THEN I WANT ALL THE COURT CASES AND MONEY TO STOP THAT'S ALL OF I WOULD BE WILLING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY. SO MY QUESTION IS HOW DO WE WILL BAKER AND MAYOR NOW HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD AS A GROUP SO WE DON'T HAVE 15 DIFFERENT PEOPLE PUTTING IN DIFFERENT AMOUNTS. HOW DO WE HAVE THIS
CONVERSATION NOW? >> AS I HEARD SOMEONE SAY YOU GOT TO PUT A PRICE ON THE HORSE TO GET THE DISCUSSION STARTED. SO WE NEED TO REDUCE IT TO WRITING SO WE SAY TRUE TO THE PROCESS AND SUBMIT IT TO THE OTHER SIDE. BUT WE WOULD NEED TO DISCUSS THAT AMONG OURSELVES FIRST TO SEE IF WE HAVE CONSENSUS.
YOU ARE WELCOME TO THROW IT OUT.
BUT WE'RE ALREADY AT A MAXIMUM OF TWO FOR A LOT OF SPEAKERS. SO I WOULD SUGGEST WE PUT SOMETHING IN WRITING AND AT OUR NEXT MEETING AT A MEETING, NEXT OR OTHERWISE, WE HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.
ANYBODY ELSE? COUNCILPERSON BUTLER YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED. >> SHOOT IF WE'RE DONE I BETTER USE MY LAST ONE UP. I WOULD ASK PUBLICLY THAT BECAUSE IF WE PRESENT THIS ON THURSDAY, CORRECT, THEN IT CAN BE AMENDED TOO. SO IF WE SAY RIGHT NOW IF I SAY IS IT -- IS THIS TOO SHORT OF NOTICE FOR
THURSDAY? >> IT'S PROBABLY PRETTY SHORT. I'M --
>> I'M NOT TOO SURE. >> IS IT TOO SHORT OF NOTICE FOR YOU TO WRITE SOMETHING UP FOR US.
>> IF THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENT THE ACTUAL WRITTEN SETTLEMENT FULL COMPLETE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ARE THE MURPHY DOCUMENTS THEN YOU'RE GOING TO INCLUDE THE ENGINEERING PROJECT AS WE'RE REFERRING TO IT.
AND THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE CHANGING IS WE KNOW THEY'VE REJECTED TO INDEMNITY CLAUSES WE WOULD TAKE THE SPECIALIZED ONES OUT.
WE KNOW THEY'VE OBJECTED TO GETTING APPROVAL FROM THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WHICH THERE'S ONLY LIKE BASICALLY A COUPLE THAT DON'T INVOLVE THEM.
SO WE CAN TAKE THAT OUT. AND THEN WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU IS YOU START OUT WITH $250,000 REIMBURSEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ENGINEERING PROJECT THAT'S THE BASE DOCUMENT. WE PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.
THAT'S THE PROPOSAL WE'RE GOING SEND.
WE JUST START WITH LITERALLY DISMISSING ALL THREE CASES AND ALL WE'RE GOING TO DO IS $250 REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS ON THE ENGINEERING PROJECT. THEN IF Y'ALL WANT TO ANY
[01:20:03]
ONE OR MORE OF YOU WANT TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO PAY SOME MORE THEN YOU CAN DO THAT AND I WOULD WRITE THAT INTO, AFTER THE COUNCIL MEETING IS OVER I WOULD WRITE THAT INTO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BEFORELET'S ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING TONIGHT.
LET'S DO THAT. >> THEN I WILL -- I'LL ASK
IT BE PUT ON THE MURPHY. >> BASICALLY IT'S THE SAME SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WE ALREADY PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED BUT WE KNOW THEY'VE OBJECTED TO A COUPLE THINGS.
WE'LL TAKE THAT PART OUT. THEN NEXT WEEK IF YOU WANT TO SAY LET'S PAY THEM $1.2 MILLION WE CAN WRITE THAT IN THERE. IF YOU WANT TO PAY THEM NOTHING THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO OFFER.
IF YOU WANT TO PAY THEM $100,000 ON TOP OF THE $250 THAT'S FINE OR COUNCILMEMBER SMITH SAID LET'S PAY THEM A TOTAL OF $275 WHAT THAT WOULD BE AS I UNDERSTAND HER PROPOSAL IS STICKING TO THE $250 REABOUT IMYOU UNDERSTANDMENT FOR COST FOR ENGINEERING PROJECT AND LET'S THROW AN EXTRA $25,000 ON TOP OF IT.
DON'T FORGET WE'VE ALREADY SENT THEM THE $29,000.
>> IF THAT'S HOW Y'ALL WANT TO DO IT.
NOW THAT'S NOT TO SAY ANY SINGLE MEMBER YOU KNOW CAN SAY WELL, I DON'T WANT TO USE THE MURPHY DOCUMENTS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. BUT TELL --
>> THEY ALREADY PAID FOR THEM.
>> NOT ONLY THAT, I AIN'T GOT TIME TO DRAFT SOMETHING
FROM SCRATCH. >> THAT'S WHY I ASKED YOU SPECIFICALLY IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU HAD TIME
TO DO. >> IN FACT MR. OLSON HIMSELF ASKED, I THINK Y'ALL HAVE SEEN THAT FROM THE E-MAILS I'VE SENT TO Y'ALL, HE'S ALREADY HAD THOSE DOCUMENTS FROM US SINCE LAST SUM SORRY HE'S VERY FAMILIAR WITH THEM. THEY REJECTED THAT PROPOSAL.
THEN A FEW WEEKS AGO I DON'T KNOW THREE, FOUR WEEKS AGO I CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN, HE ASKED FOR US TO SEND IT TO HIM AGAIN IN WORD VERSION. I FULLY EXPECTED HE WAS GOING TO TURN AROUND AND SEND US A SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL USING THAT AS THE TEMPLATE DOCUMENTS BUT HE WAS GOING TO TWEAK IT IN A WAY THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE TO HIS CLIENT. IF WE GOT THAT, IF THEY STILL DO THAT WE COULD PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA, TOO.
TIME'S RUNNING SHORT TO GET IT ON EXECUTIVE SESSION.
ONLY WAY WE COULD CONSIDER IT IF WE DON'T HAVE IT IN TIME REALLY BY NOON TOMORROW IS SO PUT IT ON EXECUTIVE SESSION. EASIEST THING TO DO EXACTLY
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, OKAY. >> THEY KNOW IT'S COMING,
TOO. >> NOT ONLY DO THEY KNOW IT'S COMING BUT THEY KNOW WHAT EVERYBODY'S BOTTOM LINE
NUMBERS ARE, TOO. >> SORRY MR. RIGGER.
>> BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE TREMENDOUS VEILS OF THE PUBLIC MEANS ACT. WE HAVE TO SHOW OUR CARDS
THEY DON'T. >> MAYOR CAN I ASK HIM A
QUESTION? >> YES, SO THE ACTUAL SETTLEMENT WHICH I SENT Y'ALL LIKE LAST NIGHT OR TODAY I THINK I SENT IT LAST NIGHT.
SO IT DOES INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, ALL THE LANGUAGE THAT DESCRIBES THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
BUT WHAT I SENT YAUM DOES NOT INCLUDE -- Y'ALL DOES NOT INCLUDE THE BIG MAPS ENGINEERING DRAWINGS AND STUFF BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST TOO BIG FOR ME TO SCAN AND SEND TO YOU. WE HAVE THOSE, TOO, MR. RIGGINS. WE HAVE THE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS THAT DESCRIBE THE PROJECT, CORRECT? YEAH. BUT I DIDN'T SEND THOSE BECAUSE I DON'T ACTUALLY I DON'T HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO -- THEY'VE GOT BIG SCANNER PLOTTERS.
SO YOU HAVEN'T GOT THAT YET. BUT IT'S TRUE WHAT YOU ARE ASKING THAT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, IT'S A FULL COMPLETE AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE THE ENGINEERING
PLANS. >> AND MINUS THE STUFF THEY ALREADY SAID THEY DIDN'T LIKE.
>> I WILL TAKE THE STUFF OUT THAT THEY SAY THEY DIDN'T LIKE. YES.
>> YOU CAN ALWAYS CALL ME, TOO.
THAT'S MY PLEAD. I JUST WANT TO GET THIS BALL ROLLING AND GIVE US ALL SOME FREEDOM.
SO WE CAN START DOING WHAT WE WERE ELECTED TO DO.
AND NOT MAKING A RELATIONSHIP THAT WE NEED TO MAKE AND MEND. I THINK THAT'S IT.
I WILL ENTERTAIN A NOTION ADJOURN.
>> MOTION TO ADJOURN PROPERLY SECONDED WITHOUT OBJECTION. WE'RE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.