1987-07-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

III I III Council Meeting Minutes July 14, 1987 Williams recalled he had moved, at the June 9, 1987, council meet- ing, to post the north side of poppyseed; Benke stated at the June 23, 1987, council meeting problems were incurred as it related to the Agreement so the resolution to conceptually approve the signing of poppyseed was not adopted. Brandt requested that "less" in Section 5e(1) be replaced with "fewer" and council concurred with such change. In response to a question from Blomquist relative to the consequences if the School District did not adhere to the condi- tions of the Agreement, LeFevere indicated the City would proceed with legal action in the form of suing the School District for Breach of Contract and request the court order them to comply. Blomquist also asked if there could be a question as to whether or not the Agreement was valid, to which LeFevere responded there were basically three areas open to challenge, however, this Agree- ment would improve the cityls position in two of the potential challenge areas; and basically felt this was a sound enforceable document. LeFevere elaborated that two of the potential challenges could be brought at the present time. (1) If the city would simply require construction of additional parking spaces as a condition to grant- ing a special use permit, the city does not have legal authority to require School District to secure special use permit on project of this kind and entering into Agreement improves cityls position as it relates to this potential challenge. (2) Whether the city - can require a construction of a certain number of stalls and were acting arbitrarily and capriciously, or if they had a sound and reasonable basis for requiring this. Again, this Agreement improves city.s position in this regard. With regard to the third potential challenge area, LeFevere stated the law is not altogether clear with the effect of contracts with respect to zoning (ie "Contract Zoning") and stated he personally does not feel this matter can be defined as such. Blomquist again questioned the type of ruling the court could ren- der if the School District did not meet the terms of a judgement; LeFevere responded the District would be held in contempt of court, a fine would probably be imposed, and they would still have to comply. Blomquist felt Section 5a(1) was not clear on whether or not the date shown was limiting the city to a specific time and suggested adding "any time thereafter." The four other councilmembers felt comfortable with the wording in the draft, noting Section 5d clar- ifies the control of the city. Blomquist questioned the need for Item 4 in the first section of the resolution relating to the posting of specific streets. After some discussion it was agreed the actual posting requirements of specific streets was covered in the Agreement and would be handled by individual resolutions covering this. Page 3