1
00:00:07,240 --> 00:00:15,080
um yeah a couple things um is uh G GJ
Louie Inc are they still under contract

2
00:00:13,160 --> 00:00:22,680
the city
of as far as the social Source

3
00:00:19,640 --> 00:00:28,960
developer right now that I would have to
say no the judge rule that we were that

4
00:00:26,240 --> 00:00:34,280
we were not legally able to enter into
that agreement and gj3 filed an appeal

5
00:00:32,320 --> 00:00:38,360
in the pellet court but at this point
judge has ruled that we did not have the

6
00:00:36,000 --> 00:00:42,160
right to sign that document so I would
say no that that uh document does not

7
00:00:40,680 --> 00:00:48,760
exist at this
point second question is uh the first

8
00:00:45,760 --> 00:00:54,359
page we have listed
uh the city of columb is proposing a new

9
00:00:51,280 --> 00:00:58,920
interchange on 255 provide access to a
plan makes to use commercial development

10
00:00:56,039 --> 00:01:03,720
it's going across development now
currently

11
00:01:00,519 --> 00:01:08,960
uh that is not the case
correct there there's not currently

12
00:01:06,520 --> 00:01:14,600
development that is there unless that is
proposed

13
00:01:10,159 --> 00:01:19,000
there under that specific name right who
knows well for if we were to pass this

14
00:01:16,840 --> 00:01:23,360
tonight and their names on it what
liability is that posed to us absolutely

15
00:01:21,000 --> 00:01:30,840
none whatsoever I spoke before went S I
do and she said that once again that's

16
00:01:25,400 --> 00:01:36,600
why I explained if you look at the fifth
um whereas down and starts talking about

17
00:01:33,759 --> 00:01:42,079
public growth and ass and Associated
rways within the AP and the development

18
00:01:38,759 --> 00:01:46,960
of lots within the AP this all stems
around the area of potential effect that

19
00:01:44,159 --> 00:01:51,560
was set forth when we wanted the final
access justification they did not look

20
00:01:49,000 --> 00:01:55,799
at the development they just happened
since there was a development ongoing

21
00:01:53,159 --> 00:02:02,159
they put that as as a name in it but the
development isn't the key here the key

22
00:01:58,960 --> 00:02:08,520
here is the area of potential effect and
that area was set forth by shipo iarp

23
00:02:06,039 --> 00:02:13,680
idot and federal highways they're the
ones that the outline of the AP and the

24
00:02:10,840 --> 00:02:17,879
outline at the AP is totally different
than the outline that we set forth in

25
00:02:15,760 --> 00:02:23,760
the master development agreement was
previously agreed upon with the

26
00:02:20,599 --> 00:02:29,280
developer in the city so so would it be
a problem to take that name

27
00:02:26,000 --> 00:02:34,000
off I don't see a reason to I don't see
a problem with but I don't see a reason

28
00:02:30,800 --> 00:02:34,000
to it's just a delay

29
00:02:34,239 --> 00:02:41,080
TCH it's not trying to delay I anytime I
I do a work on a contract anytime

30
00:02:39,280 --> 00:02:45,680
anyone's name is mentioned anywhere on a
contract they're you know they have the

31
00:02:43,239 --> 00:02:48,400
potential to be brought up in something
so I if they're not mentioned in here I

32
00:02:47,360 --> 00:02:54,120
don't see a
reason why they would be

33
00:02:51,040 --> 00:03:00,959
problem I was I I was going to be
request be more delegate change from is

34
00:02:57,599 --> 00:03:00,959
to was

35
00:03:02,840 --> 00:03:11,040
SEC as far as I'm concerned the
development can it's it's the

36
00:03:07,200 --> 00:03:16,360
development known as the we know that
area and what's going to be developed

37
00:03:12,720 --> 00:03:20,799
down there as the colal crossing
devel it's it's been known that way for

38
00:03:19,400 --> 00:03:24,840
5 years
now doesn't say it has to

39
00:03:28,080 --> 00:03:41,080
be all in in 1B on 527 on the screen it
it looks like when they say includes all

40
00:03:37,920 --> 00:03:45,280
portions of the proposed Columbia cross
development as described in then it

41
00:03:43,720 --> 00:03:51,879
talks about reference or attached
documents to clearly dep the project

42
00:03:48,760 --> 00:03:58,799
boundaries it sounds like Al that
they're using this as the best way to

43
00:03:55,200 --> 00:04:02,560
describe the area it says proposed and
it say our attached document that

44
00:04:01,519 --> 00:04:09,319
clearly
describes PS the

45
00:04:06,200 --> 00:04:16,840
project I mean this is probably this
would probably be I'm guessing would be

46
00:04:11,879 --> 00:04:16,840
the easiest way to depict the

47
00:04:20,239 --> 00:04:28,160
area that's why I was and that's the
discussion I I had the same discussion

48
00:04:24,919 --> 00:04:32,360
with Laura renson from i take exactly
what you brought up I figured it would

49
00:04:29,919 --> 00:04:36,479
be and I had that discussion with Laur
and and she said that she did not see

50
00:04:34,639 --> 00:04:38,840
that the way the verbage is in here it
it's a

51
00:04:41,759 --> 00:04:50,120
reference I was just wondering you spoke
with rining and all these these various

52
00:04:46,720 --> 00:04:54,160
um people about the the PA I'm just
wondering do we have any of that

53
00:04:51,840 --> 00:05:00,680
documented and writing for any of us to
read so we can we can

54
00:04:56,479 --> 00:05:04,280
verify what was actually discussed
I know but i' like now it's recording I

55
00:05:03,000 --> 00:05:09,730
know but I'd still like to see it
writing from

56
00:05:06,440 --> 00:05:12,809
dist no I
[Music]

57
00:05:13,000 --> 00:05:21,960
don't any other question you just to
confirm the term Colombia Crossing is a

58
00:05:20,319 --> 00:05:26,759
trademark that
is

59
00:05:24,280 --> 00:05:33,039
correct I don't know whether it
is it was our colia Crossing we entitled

60
00:05:31,199 --> 00:05:39,880
wetit to the
name I can see that just want to effect

61
00:05:36,880 --> 00:05:45,319
that does have this
docum I don't know that there's ever

62
00:05:41,840 --> 00:05:50,639
been a formal firing of a trademark in
that I've never seen a trademark at TM

63
00:05:48,800 --> 00:05:55,319
see the circle around it next to that
name there a lot of contract there's a

64
00:05:52,680 --> 00:05:55,319
corporation

65
00:05:55,520 --> 00:06:02,639
name call it the CCA a corporation out
there that

66
00:06:00,880 --> 00:06:08,199
doesn't mean that we're stealing the
trademark

67
00:06:04,440 --> 00:06:12,479
need all around um there's there's a lot
of questions here tonight I don't have a

68
00:06:09,800 --> 00:06:17,160
problem with the PA as long as we pursue
a Federal Highway Bill and try to get

69
00:06:14,360 --> 00:06:21,160
the government to pay for this um but I
do think I mean none of us are attorneys

70
00:06:19,000 --> 00:06:26,240
up here I don't think it' hurt to run
some of these questions by Tom

71
00:06:23,360 --> 00:06:30,919
or uh get a legal opinion from Wayne or
some attorney that might think some of

72
00:06:29,240 --> 00:06:36,479
verbage the agreement should be changed
for whatever reason whether it's uh

73
00:06:33,960 --> 00:06:41,479
copyright or
U I think we should

74
00:06:38,759 --> 00:06:46,680
take until we get
some you know some of our Answers by but

75
00:06:45,120 --> 00:06:51,800
all these answers were answered by the
attorneys back in August I mean this

76
00:06:49,680 --> 00:06:56,800
well but being the being the lawsuit was
thrown out I mean maybe maybe there is a

77
00:06:53,840 --> 00:07:00,199
thing that that that Columbia pres name
shouldn't be in there I'm just saying I

78
00:06:58,319 --> 00:07:03,720
don't know I think think any of us no
we're not attorneys well I'll tell you

79
00:07:02,199 --> 00:07:07,319
this if we start monkeying with this
then we're going to go all the way back

80
00:07:04,919 --> 00:07:09,479
through the process again it it's ready
to

81
00:07:10,080 --> 00:07:17,280
go I mean it's just like when we start
bringing up the names of Chiefs and and

82
00:07:14,759 --> 00:07:21,520
tribes it was just a way to go back
through the process again and we did it

83
00:07:19,240 --> 00:07:26,720
over and over and over again and it cost
a lot of money in attorney

84
00:07:24,319 --> 00:07:31,520
feeds it's ready to
go we we discussed it today

85
00:07:33,759 --> 00:07:40,960
well I just I just think some things
have changed since the last time it was

86
00:07:37,240 --> 00:07:45,199
discussed last September so
um I I don't think we want to vote on

87
00:07:43,560 --> 00:07:49,680
something that's important with guessing
and not being sure what complete

88
00:07:46,840 --> 00:07:53,919
ramifications may be so I don't think it
would be such a bad thing if Alderman ay

89
00:07:51,720 --> 00:07:59,919
would call an opz meeting on last time
for us to discuss it and then move

90
00:07:55,960 --> 00:08:03,879
forward after we can discuss it tonight
and that's that was just on my mind

91
00:08:01,800 --> 00:08:08,800
because you know we are taking the time
to literate tonight to have OPC meetings

92
00:08:07,199 --> 00:08:16,599
and uh because I thought if these
questions were answered that U uh the

93
00:08:12,800 --> 00:08:20,000
OPC would not be necessary but I just I
I think we should ask the question of

94
00:08:17,919 --> 00:08:24,520
the Columbia Crossing thing and since
we've had an obz meeting tonight that

95
00:08:22,520 --> 00:08:28,800
would be the only question with with ask
to and if that question is satisfied

96
00:08:27,159 --> 00:08:32,880
then we can go through with a vote on
the 15th

97
00:08:30,639 --> 00:08:36,760
is that the only question though Iain a
motion to approve it or give me the

98
00:08:34,800 --> 00:08:42,320
authority to to sign
it with Tom reviewing the verbage of

99
00:08:39,839 --> 00:08:42,320
colia

100
00:08:43,120 --> 00:08:48,760
Crossing I'm sorry all be over you have
something to add yeah I don't understand

101
00:08:47,360 --> 00:08:53,160
what the big hurry is you're pushing
pushing pushing pushing it's a simple

102
00:08:50,279 --> 00:08:57,560
question I just want to just to see the
big hurry this has been going on for

103
00:08:55,720 --> 00:09:02,920
longer than you were an Al then if you
can answer the question yes or no

104
00:09:00,120 --> 00:09:06,519
whether or not that should be in there I
you're a better attorney than any of us

105
00:09:04,399 --> 00:09:11,440
in this room I told you I spoke with
idot and she didn't not have that's not

106
00:09:09,079 --> 00:09:15,959
talking about I it's talking about an
attorney's but see last time we got an

107
00:09:13,560 --> 00:09:21,839
attorney's opinion we wanted a second
attorney so I I mean we can play this

108
00:09:18,320 --> 00:09:21,839
gamees to c