02-24-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

P4INUTES City Council Feb. 24, 1988 School Di str•ict Issues (Cont.) Next, the Capital View matter• was consider~ed. Collova r•epor•ted that the Capital View building is not officially on the mar•ket and the School Distr•ict is not sur~e if it should adver•tise the sale of the building. The School Distr~ict would like to know the City's feelings on the matter~. Fahey suggested that once the offer• is made to the School Distr•ict, the City Attor•ney and he explain the r•ational for~ the offer•. Council agr~eed. Blesener~ suggested that the C issue as well as the issue of School. Consider•ation should indoor~ and outdoor• facilities maintenance costs on the pool and $75,000 per• year•. ity's committee should consider~ this the addition onto Little Canada Elementar~y be given to the r•etention of the use of at Capital View. Blesener• noted that at Capital View alone ar~e between $50,000 Fahey r•epor•ted that Jur~an & Moody has studied the option of the City's pur•chasing the Capital View building in or~der~ to have the ability to lease the building to a user. This would give the City control over the use of the building. The ar•r~angement could be a lease/pur~chase. Fahey agr~eed that the committee should look at the issue. Blesener~ did not believe the City could affor~d to pur•chase Capital View due to maintenance costs of the building. Blesener~ suggested that if the City pur~chased the building, perhaps the City of Roseville should be appr~oached to shar•e in maintenance costs. Scalze also suggested that the City look into the possibility of only a por•tion of the building being sold such as was done with the Old Little Canada School building. Blesener~ indicated that the School Distr•ict has said that they ar•e not in the r•ental or~ r~eal estate business. The School Distr~ict would like to know what the City envisions with the Capital View building. Fahey stated that the City wants to maximize the r•etention of the use of the facilities at Capital View, with a minimum of the land to the east being r•etained for~ City use. Fahey noted that the City's pr~ojected population is 12,500, and noted that ther•e will be gr~eater• demand in the futur•e for• r~ecr•eational facilities. Fahey also commented that due to budget constr~aints it may be up to the City in the futur•e to pr•ovide mor•e r•ecr~eational pr~ogr•ams and facilities. Fahey pointed out that under~ a lease/back ar•rangement, the r•ecr~eational facilities at Capital View would be available to the City at no cost. Blesener~ felt the Capital View issue and the Little Canada Elementar•y School addition wer•e combined, and that the committee needed to look at both issues. Collova pointed out the pr~oposed land pur•chases the City is cur~r•ently consider•ing and questioned if the land to the east of Capital View was necessar•y. Page -11-