UPDATED: In what can only be called a Pyrrhic victory, the New Rochelle City Council came out of its second executive session in as many weeks to vote on the 14th extension of Capelli’s LeCount Square MOU and approved the extension 4-3. This time, however, there were strings attached (see original post below).
VOTING on 14th MOU Extension for LeCount Square: Trangucci – NO; Stowe – YES; St. Paul – NO; Tarantino – NO; Fertel – YES; Sussman – YES; Bramson – YES
The air was definitely out of the Democrats balloon as Fertel, Sussamn and Bramson spoke of Capelli and LeCount in the past tense. Bramson looked like his dog just died.
ORIGINAL: City Council Unveils the Tables Terms of Capelli 14th MOU Extension on LeCount Square with Conditions….Developing…
The City Council tonight discussed proposed terms for a proposed 14th MOU Extension for the LeCount Square project but set the matter aside over concerns over whether the agreement provided the City sufficient protection in the event of litigation by Capelli against the City of New Rochelle.
The Mayor once again invoked “a matter of real estate” to go into Executive Session even though the City is not proposing to buy, sell or lease property. According to an Advisory Opinion from the New York State Committee on Open Government illegal for the Mayor to assert “real estate” as a justification for closing the City Council meet to the public.
It is legal for the City Council to go into Executive Session to discuss matters of pending litigation.
Immediately prior to going into Executive Session, Marianne Sussman expressed her concern that statements by Barry Fertel bordered on disclosing the City’s litigation strategy. Barry Fertel had alluded to the need for line 2 (below) based on a specific claim was on the table during the executive session.
The Mayor made a statement prior to turning off the cameras that he wished it to be known that this section does not mean the City has any expectation of litigation arising from the City’s performance under past MOUs.
This is the language the City Council was discussing from the current draft of the proposed 14th MOU:
…WHEREAS, on December 21, 2009 by Resolution No. 241 of 2009, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Thirteenth Amended MOU;
Be it resolved, that the City Council of the City of New Rochelle hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a Fourteenth Amended MOU to amend Section 2.2 of the MOU to amend Section 2.2 of the MOU to amend the Exclusivity Date through December 31, 2010, upon the following conditions.
1. By July 31, 2010, exterior improvements shall be made to 5 Anderson Street to the satisfaction of the Department of Development. If such improvements are not made by July 31, 2010, the MOU shall automatically expire.
2. Developer shall release the City from any and all claims with respect to the City’s performance under any previously approved MOU.
3. The MOU shall not further extend absent an agreement in writing with respect to the United States Post Office property.
During the meeting Council agreed to amend the third condition with the following sentence: “The City shall in its sole discretion determine whether such a written agreement demonstrates a reasonable probability of sale.” There was another line discussed to the effect that eminent domain would not be used.