Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 14, 2004 <br />through the work scope and has made some changes. City staff will also <br />be used for some of the work. <br />Blesener expressed concern that the project may be putting the City at a <br />greater risk than initially thought. The City Administrator agreed that the <br />work scope is more than initially anticipated. However, the extent of this <br />work scope is necessary in order to put the house back into good shape. <br />Blesener suggested that staff' continue to work to control these costs as <br />much as possible. <br />Mr. LaValle introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RE.SO] UTION NO. 2004-4-71-APPROVING TIIE 1 ETTER OF <br />UNDERSTANDING/CONTRACT WITH GMAC FOR THE <br />RENOVATION OF 594 EAST COUNTYROAD 13-2 AS <br />RECOMMENDED 73Y THE CITYADMINIb'TRATOR AND <br />AUTHORIZING TIIE MAYOR AND CITYADMINISTRATOR TO <br />EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Montour. <br />Ayes (5) LaValle, Montour, Blesener, Fahey, Anderson, <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />LETTER OP' The City Administrator reviewed the Letter of Understanding with the <br />UNDERSTANDING Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District relative to their purchase <br />WITH RWMWD and development of their headquarters on the City's Noel Drive property. <br />Fahey indicated that one area of concern is the potential reuse of the site <br />should the Watershed chose to sell it in the future. Fahey indicated that <br />the City should ensure that potential future uses of the site require City <br />review and approval. <br />Blesener suggested that the City have first right of refusal on this property. <br />Fahey agreed, but noted that at a minimum the City should have review <br />and approval authority for future uses of the site. Fahey suggested that the <br />City Administrator and City Attorney draft the appropriate language to <br />ensure the appropriate amount of control over future use of the property. <br />Anderson questions if a right of f rst refusal would be in conflict with the <br />language regarding our approval for the re-use of the site. Fahey <br />acknowledged this point and suggested we tighten up the approval <br />language on re-use. <br />10 <br />