My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council Work Session - 07/26/2022
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council Work Session
>
2022
>
Minutes - Council Work Session - 07/26/2022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2025 10:32:13 AM
Creation date
8/26/2022 1:41:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council Work Session
Document Date
07/26/2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Councilmember Specht referred to some of the legal questions that came up such as if there is a <br />way to save a business the City has to and asked City Attorney Knaak to comment. <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak replied go right ahead. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht asked if City Attorney Knaak thought the City was legally required to <br />extend it then. <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak replied he didn’t think they were required to but whether or not that is a good <br />idea in terms of policy is something that could be decided. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht replied if he understood correctly that the law says if there is a way to save <br />a business the City has to so it seemed like there was a legal obligation to extend that to save that. <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak replied where that can come into play is if the City is taking it and they <br />challenge the taking and say it isn’t necessary the City could lose on the taking issue. He stated <br />usually it is hard to lose on a taking issue when they are dealing with highway related projects in <br />his experience. <br /> <br />Mr. Orcutt commented he doesn’t answer legal questions usually but he stated if they don’t get an <br />agreement they like, the public purpose can be questioned because they can get a road to that <br />location <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak replied if he were on the other side that would be his tac. <br /> <br />Mr. Orcutt stated he is trying to present this in a way, not to divulge additional information, but he <br />is saying that they need to look at it from protecting the City and County because they are all in <br />this until everything is settled. He stated if they could not make a lot like this work here but the <br />City could make it work somewhere else, they have to make sure there is a reason why and it’s not <br />just the vision. He stated he is just bringing this forward and will go with whatever Council <br />decides. He asked for a relatively timely decision to move forward. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff commented he could see both sides of it and asked for a non- <br />committal perspective from everyone else. He stated he was leaning towards not extending it but <br />wanted to hear everyone else’s thoughts. He commented it sounded like Councilmember Specht <br />was more in favor of extending it. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht replied he was thinking of both as well especially if EZ Auto doesn’t want <br />to stay, the City may need to do a buy-out either way. He stated he didn’t know how a road would <br />benefit the City then. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff replied saving $4 million. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht asked if it was correct that the idea was that if the road was extended the <br />City wouldn’t buy EZ Auto, they would have to stay then. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session /July 26, 2022 <br />Page 7 of 19 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.