Laserfiche WebLink
would be terminated. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak stated that there were promises made by Mr. Shot and there were <br />agreements made under much hesitation by the Council. The City gave them the opportunity and <br />extended the permit twice already. She felt that the good intentions were now gone and for <br />whatever reason St. Paul Terminals did not come forward. <br /> <br />Mr. Martinson replied that last year if some of the discussions did not occur regarding the <br />expansion of the facility they may not have been in the position. The economics did play a part <br />in this as well, but Mr. Shot has sold a couple of his other properties in order to raise money and <br />he is prepared to do something with the site. He would not be willing to accept the fact that they <br />are totally at fault. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that Mr. Martinson has indicated that fundamental fairness should <br />dictate the extension, and inquired if Mr. Martinson was referring to the late notice they received <br />pertaining to the Planning Commission meeting and if so was there anything he would have <br />presented to the Plmming Commission that he had not presented to the City Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Martinson replied that he was unable to answer that because he was not present for the <br />discussion at the Planning Commission meeting. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich inquired if there was anything in addition that he wanted the Council to <br />be aware of. <br /> <br />Mr. Martinson replied that he had provided the City Council with the comments he wanted to <br />make regarding the issue. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that the time frame of when they were notified of the Planning <br />Commission meeting did not make a difference since they were able to discuss the issue with the <br />City Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Martinson disagreed, stating that he thought it made a big difference. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich inquired as to how they have not been treated fairly. <br /> <br />Mr. Martinson replied that they were not able to appear at the Planning Commission meeting and <br />beyond the notice requirement, the fact that St. Paul Terminals was in discussion with the City <br />regarding expanding the facility, they did not feel there was urgency with completing the fence. <br />It was ultimately unfair for the City to not respond or the City not to inform him that the EDA <br />determined the area as being a blighted area. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman noted that the area has not been determined to be a blighted area, it <br />was a general discussion amongst the EDA to consider redevelopment of the area. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich inquired as to how that was unfair to his clients. <br /> <br />City Council/July 8, 2003 <br />Page 21 of 30 <br /> <br /> <br />