My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012-11-26 Regular session
Public Access
>
City Council Minutes
>
2012
>
2012-11-26 Regular session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2012 6:03:38 PM
Creation date
12/11/2012 6:03:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Meeting
Supplemental fields
Minutes - Date
11/26/2012
TYPE
REGULAR
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
<br />and under whose authority was this placed on the agenda of a public meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Walker stated that as the City Manager, he has the authority to put an item on <br />the agenda. He said that in this particular case, he consulted with the City <br />Attorney and he indicated that there were no reasons for this item to be <br />considered in a closed session since there were no further negotiations occurring. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow asked if this was under the advice of counsel. He said this was the first <br />time since he has been serving on the Council that real estate negotiations were <br />placed on the agenda for a public meeting and asked if the strategy was for <br />Council to approve the transaction tonight. <br /> <br />Mr. Walker stated that there were no further negotiations. He said the Council was <br />either going to approve for the City Manager to sign the agreement or not. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow asked Mr. Walker if it was his strategy and not members of Council that <br />deemed this the best way to move forward and have Council discuss this sale of <br />property in open session, with the buyer being or not being in the room. <br /> <br />Mr. Walker reiterated that as the City Manager, he had the right to put an item on <br />the Council agenda. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow said he understood that the City Manager had the right, but wanted to <br />know what strategy did he use as to why this was beneficial to the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Walker stated that he believed the citizens of University City have the right to <br />know when a property purchase of that magnitude was being considered and <br />there were no further negotiations. He said the advice of counsel was that there <br />was no reason it had to be considered in a closed session. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow stated he agreed that citizens have a right too, but to the best of his <br />knowledge they have a right to information after the Council had taken a vote in an <br />executive session on a sale of real estate. Mr. Crow thought that at some point <br />and time this strategy has to be “called into question of how this made sense to <br />have Council have an open session about the sale of real estate with the <br />developer in the room. <br /> <br />Mr. Price stated that the property was one of the largest properties that the City <br />own and he did not think the City bought the property to broker it to somebody who <br />just wanted to buy it. He said that the City purchased that property to develop it. <br />Mr. Price said he was confused because it was a real estate sale, not a developer <br />to present the Council with documents such as design and letters of agreement. <br />He said the Council had nothing. Mr. Price said the City was holding land to <br />develop because if sold, the City would lose site control over that property. <br /> <br />Ms. Carr stated that the issue was procedural because real estate had traditionally <br />been in closed sessions and the Council had always had that opportunity to take a <br />vote to not go into closed session and discuss it in public. She said in this case <br />the Council was not given that opportunity. She also believed that not all <br />18 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.