Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Q: <br />Mr. Price had questions on: <br /> <br /> Page 3, 2.4, (a), General Authority. To sue and be sued in its corporate name. <br />Mr. Mello said the 353 Corporation could be sued as a separate entity and not <br />either City. Page 7, 3.1, (b), Boundaries, Peripheral Area. Mr. Mello stated that <br />the agreement states they will not use eminent domain in a residential area but <br />it could be considered in the core area. Mr. Mello and Mr. Martin said language <br />needed to be massaged in order to clarify the eminent domain concern. It was <br />stated again that the corporation would not have the power of eminent domain <br />– that remains solely with the City Council as per Missouri State statute. <br /> <br /> Page 11, 8.2, (b) Petition, The funding mechanisms shall include a sales tax of <br />up to one percent. Mr. Mello said this would be similar to what is done in the <br />Loop area. <br /> <br /> Page 15, 11.1, Term (50) years. Mr. Price questioned the length of time. Mr. <br />Martin noted that the term of the agreement could be changed. <br /> <br /> Page 16, 12.1. Mr. Price was concerned about opting out of the Joint <br />Redevelopment Commission (353 Corporation). Mr. Mello noted that contract <br />could be changed to a fee basis for a voluntary termination. <br /> <br />Q: <br /> Ms. Carr noted she would have difficulty in signing a contract with no viable out. <br />A: <br />Mr. Mello stated the thought was to make it more difficult to opt out to help assure both <br />cities would not opt out, possibly leaving the other City in a lurch. For example, one <br />city could not opt out of the agreement once development had occurred in that city. <br />Mr. Martin said it would make sense to know what it costs or penalties could occur if <br />one city opted out of the agreement. <br /> <br />Q: <br /> Ms. Carr asked Mr. Martin about his memo suggesting that limiting eminent domain <br />may not be legal since only Council can use eminent domain. <br />A: <br />Mr. Martin stated it was a technical point that is easily resolved. He said if the intent in <br />this agreement was to absolutely prohibit eminent domain in a certain area; it might be <br />unlawful because State Statue authorizes cities to exercise eminent domain. If the <br />City imposes on itself a declaration that they will not use eminent domain, it conflicts <br />with the State Statute. Mr. Martin said it would not be a difficult change. Mr. Mello <br />stated it will be a policy decision. <br /> <br />Q: <br /> Mr. Kraft stated as an example, a contract such as a marriage or a lease - they are not <br />always binding and can be terminated maybe with a cost. <br />A: <br /> Mr. Martin said if you want to continue the project one would make it hard to get out <br />and the way the contract is written right now there is no exit strategy, except if the City <br />determines there is a breach of contract. In that scenario, the default provisions of the <br />contract take over which he felt was antagonistic. Mr. Martin said the other approach <br />is to make it easier to get out by defining an exit strategy. He said it made more sense <br />to him to have an exit strategy agreed upon when going into the agreement. Mr. <br />Martin said this way a city would know its cost to get out and hopefully would prevent <br />any legal litigation. Mr. Mello did not agree with a contract that would make it easy to <br />terminate. He noted there could be land–use issues that would need to be <br />considered. He said it would be difficult but not impossible. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow left at 7:25 p.m. <br />4 <br /> <br />