[0:07] um yeah a couple things um is uh G GJ
Louie Inc are they still under contract
[0:13] the city
of as far as the social Source
[0:19] developer right now that I would have to
say no the judge rule that we were that
[0:26] we were not legally able to enter into
that agreement and gj3 filed an appeal
[0:32] in the pellet court but at this point
judge has ruled that we did not have the
[0:36] right to sign that document so I would
say no that that uh document does not
[0:40] exist at this
point second question is uh the first
[0:45] page we have listed
uh the city of columb is proposing a new
[0:51] interchange on 255 provide access to a
plan makes to use commercial development
[0:56] it's going across development now
currently
[1:00] uh that is not the case
correct there there's not currently
[1:06] development that is there unless that is
proposed
[1:10] there under that specific name right who
knows well for if we were to pass this
[1:16] tonight and their names on it what
liability is that posed to us absolutely
[1:21] none whatsoever I spoke before went S I
do and she said that once again that's
[1:25] why I explained if you look at the fifth
um whereas down and starts talking about
[1:33] public growth and ass and Associated
rways within the AP and the development
[1:38] of lots within the AP this all stems
around the area of potential effect that
[1:44] was set forth when we wanted the final
access justification they did not look
[1:49] at the development they just happened
since there was a development ongoing
[1:53] they put that as as a name in it but the
development isn't the key here the key
[1:58] here is the area of potential effect and
that area was set forth by shipo iarp
[2:06] idot and federal highways they're the
ones that the outline of the AP and the
[2:10] outline at the AP is totally different
than the outline that we set forth in
[2:15] the master development agreement was
previously agreed upon with the
[2:20] developer in the city so so would it be
a problem to take that name
[2:26] off I don't see a reason to I don't see
a problem with but I don't see a reason
[2:30] to it's just a delay
[2:34] TCH it's not trying to delay I anytime I
I do a work on a contract anytime
[2:39] anyone's name is mentioned anywhere on a
contract they're you know they have the
[2:43] potential to be brought up in something
so I if they're not mentioned in here I
[2:47] don't see a
reason why they would be
[2:51] problem I was I I was going to be
request be more delegate change from is
[2:57] to was
[3:02] SEC as far as I'm concerned the
development can it's it's the
[3:07] development known as the we know that
area and what's going to be developed
[3:12] down there as the colal crossing
devel it's it's been known that way for
[3:19] 5 years
now doesn't say it has to
[3:28] be all in in 1B on 527 on the screen it
it looks like when they say includes all
[3:37] portions of the proposed Columbia cross
development as described in then it
[3:43] talks about reference or attached
documents to clearly dep the project
[3:48] boundaries it sounds like Al that
they're using this as the best way to
[3:55] describe the area it says proposed and
it say our attached document that
[4:01] clearly
describes PS the
[4:06] project I mean this is probably this
would probably be I'm guessing would be
[4:11] the easiest way to depict the
[4:20] area that's why I was and that's the
discussion I I had the same discussion
[4:24] with Laura renson from i take exactly
what you brought up I figured it would
[4:29] be and I had that discussion with Laur
and and she said that she did not see
[4:34] that the way the verbage is in here it
it's a
[4:41] reference I was just wondering you spoke
with rining and all these these various
[4:46] um people about the the PA I'm just
wondering do we have any of that
[4:51] documented and writing for any of us to
read so we can we can
[4:56] verify what was actually discussed
I know but i' like now it's recording I
[5:03] know but I'd still like to see it
writing from
[5:06] dist no I
[Music]
[5:13] don't any other question you just to
confirm the term Colombia Crossing is a
[5:20] trademark that
is
[5:24] correct I don't know whether it
is it was our colia Crossing we entitled
[5:31] wetit to the
name I can see that just want to effect
[5:36] that does have this
docum I don't know that there's ever
[5:41] been a formal firing of a trademark in
that I've never seen a trademark at TM
[5:48] see the circle around it next to that
name there a lot of contract there's a
[5:52] corporation
[5:55] name call it the CCA a corporation out
there that
[6:00] doesn't mean that we're stealing the
trademark
[6:04] need all around um there's there's a lot
of questions here tonight I don't have a
[6:09] problem with the PA as long as we pursue
a Federal Highway Bill and try to get
[6:14] the government to pay for this um but I
do think I mean none of us are attorneys
[6:19] up here I don't think it' hurt to run
some of these questions by Tom
[6:23] or uh get a legal opinion from Wayne or
some attorney that might think some of
[6:29] verbage the agreement should be changed
for whatever reason whether it's uh
[6:33] copyright or
U I think we should
[6:38] take until we get
some you know some of our Answers by but
[6:45] all these answers were answered by the
attorneys back in August I mean this
[6:49] well but being the being the lawsuit was
thrown out I mean maybe maybe there is a
[6:53] thing that that that Columbia pres name
shouldn't be in there I'm just saying I
[6:58] don't know I think think any of us no
we're not attorneys well I'll tell you
[7:02] this if we start monkeying with this
then we're going to go all the way back
[7:04] through the process again it it's ready
to
[7:10] go I mean it's just like when we start
bringing up the names of Chiefs and and
[7:14] tribes it was just a way to go back
through the process again and we did it
[7:19] over and over and over again and it cost
a lot of money in attorney
[7:24] feeds it's ready to
go we we discussed it today
[7:33] well I just I just think some things
have changed since the last time it was
[7:37] discussed last September so
um I I don't think we want to vote on
[7:43] something that's important with guessing
and not being sure what complete
[7:46] ramifications may be so I don't think it
would be such a bad thing if Alderman ay
[7:51] would call an opz meeting on last time
for us to discuss it and then move
[7:55] forward after we can discuss it tonight
and that's that was just on my mind
[8:01] because you know we are taking the time
to literate tonight to have OPC meetings
[8:07] and uh because I thought if these
questions were answered that U uh the
[8:12] OPC would not be necessary but I just I
I think we should ask the question of
[8:17] the Columbia Crossing thing and since
we've had an obz meeting tonight that
[8:22] would be the only question with with ask
to and if that question is satisfied
[8:27] then we can go through with a vote on
the 15th
[8:30] is that the only question though Iain a
motion to approve it or give me the
[8:34] authority to to sign
it with Tom reviewing the verbage of
[8:39] colia
[8:43] Crossing I'm sorry all be over you have
something to add yeah I don't understand
[8:47] what the big hurry is you're pushing
pushing pushing pushing it's a simple
[8:50] question I just want to just to see the
big hurry this has been going on for
[8:55] longer than you were an Al then if you
can answer the question yes or no
[9:00] whether or not that should be in there I
you're a better attorney than any of us
[9:04] in this room I told you I spoke with
idot and she didn't not have that's not
[9:09] talking about I it's talking about an
attorney's but see last time we got an
[9:13] attorney's opinion we wanted a second
attorney so I I mean we can play this
[9:18] gamees to c