10-08-86 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

;~zr,~,~r~:s Ci Cy C~>uncil Oct. ~3, 198fi }~rattalone ~lesen~r a,+reed tha~ t1~e $1~'0,(?(l0 fi4ure shoi.il~S not hav~ ~een E~s~c~ Par!< Criarqe to cietermine Frattalone's par!; c!~arne. Hor~ever, Ble,ener d.i<? not (Con~t.) fcel tha~t the C~ity should discoun~ i~'r. Frattalone's r.ontrac~-for- <fee~` in calcul~tin7 9;he ~ar'~ char~e. Blesener a.'Iso pointed out that v;tien the City ~tali<ad to fi1r. Frattalon2 abo~i't purchas~inc some of V~is property for par!< lancl, Mr. Frat'talone quoter! a~Pi~ur~ of ~bout ~35,JOQ ner acre as the value of his pro~erty. ~~~r. Pahey notecf that i n the past the C~i ty 'nas used The sel 1 i nc? pr~i ce oi ~~>roper'ty to determiria par;< charges. Fahey statec! tnat unl2ss ~he C~i ty and i~ir. Erattal one can reach an agreEr,?ent on th~= val i.ie ofi tha land, th~n an appraiser ~a~i11 have to t~e hired to i~ia:<e this deterrii nati on. ~ahey al so noted that the !:i f.~/ i s~mai ~ti ng for sorne drai na7e e~se~r~ents on this property. Daubncy notrd that P~ir. Frattalone raoulcl be responsible for plyinc! for tiie apprai>al, and felt that *his vrould be an iannecessar,y bi.ird.an on Frittalone, anc hop~d Y.hat ~-rattalone anc( the City cotald reach an agreement an the va'lue of th2 land. Daubney also poinf;ed oi.it that t+ie Cnunty uses the ratio oF 2/3 ~ralue for buildincis and 1/3 value fnr larid, ?;lesener noCed that a~r_ $'15,000 p,~r acr~~, the ~ity would 'nave purchas2d. the oroperty. ~=ahey stated that he v~ould be cornfort<ble ~r~ith usin9 a figure of ^+,3~,00(l p~r acre uinich a~to~.ild se~t Che parl< charqe at ~3,7~0 cond~itionerl that f"rattalone ~i1so pr~nt the City n~cessary ctrainage easer:ients. =rattalone inc!icated that he fe1t the oark charn,e was too hiah. i~qr. Collova suggested that the ;30,OD0 p~r acr~ sdas the as!.<inq price of ttie property an<.1 that the City consicler a~finure sl~inhtly losd~r thhan $30,000. ~ L'1esener suggested that ~25,OD0 be set as the price pcr acre. Fahey noteci ti~a~t S?5,000 ner acrn +;;ould put tPie ~ark charge at y;3,125. ~r~ttalone s'till felt the park r_harge ~~ia.s too high. Uaubney comnented tPiai: he aclvised his cli~nt ~:o ac.cept the va1i.ia~ion of °~25,OOD per acre anc( ~hat I~~iring an appraiser ti~aoulc! be couni.er- r~roductive to tne situation. ; ahey rel t t:~~a~; t'n~ val ~ae of the ~~roperty stioul c!. he se t at t'ne i30,~0!l to ~35,000 figure previously quoted h~ t~r. Prattalone. I'aqe -12-