04/09/13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

pay. He indicated there was a case in St. Paul where the city had paid a contractor and the court later decided it was a non - enforceable contract. Suit had been brought against the councilmembers and the court said the City got the benefit of those services so there was no liability to councilmembers for making that payment. HRA Attorney Bray concluded the HRA could choose to pay this without violation of the law, not withstanding Chapter 82. Chairperson Backous asked about the City's Charter. HRA Attorney Bray stated the Charter governs the City, not the HRA. He noted the provision in the memorandum that dealt with the Charter said proceeds of land are to be used to pay down debt associated with acquisition of the land. However, the Charter provision does not imply 100% of the proceeds should go to pay down debt since there are costs associated with a sale so he thinks that Charter provision is addressing net proceeds. HRA Attorney Bray presented his legal opinion and offered the following four options: 1. Pay in full per the contract; 2. Determine if Landform would be willing to meet and attempt to negotiate a mutually acceptable resolution or would be willing to jointly engage a mediator or arbitrator to assist in resolving the issue; 3. Notify Landform that the HRA intends to withhold some portion of the amounts owing and if Landform objects, commence a declaratory judgment action seeking an adjudication of the parties rights; or 4. Pay what the HRA deems it owes, withhold the balance. HRA Attorney Bray advised that with Option 4, Landform may sue and the HRA's position would be if Landform does not have a brokerage license, it is not entitled to take that action. Chairperson Backous noted Landform implied it was taking a "team approach" and that a City employee does not need a brokerage license. He asked whether State law addresses that distinction. HRA Attorney Bray advised there is a distinction in Statute that City employees do not need a brokerage license. HRA Executive Director Ulrich presented staff's recommendation and support for Option 2, Determine if Landform would be willing to meet and attempt to negotiate a mutually acceptable resolution or would be willing to jointly engage a mediator or arbitrator to assist in resolving the issue. He indicated Option 2 would be the best alternative to achieve a smooth and productive transition and a clean resolution to mutual obligations under the contract. Chairperson Backous clarified that the HRA did not enter into an illegal contract or make illegal payments to Landform. He asked the HRA to not debate each detail but, rather, to focus on which Option it supported. Housing and Redevelopment Authority / April 9, 2013 Page 4 of 9