06-22-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council June 22, 1988 AIC The Ci ty Attor•ney repor~ted that AIC Cor•por•ati on has made a counter~-offer• Pr•oper•ty to the City's offer• for~ pur•chase of a por•tion of their pr•operty in the Centerville Road ar•ea. AIC Corpor•ation is pr•oposing that they pay only Agenda levied assessments on their proper•ty, and the City would be responsible Item No. 15 for~ pending assessments. AIC Cor•por•ation is also pr•oposing an inter•est r•ate higher~ than that given to other~ proper~ty owner•s in the ar~ea that have entered into agr•eements with the City for~ the pur~chase of their• land. The City Clerk repor•ted that ther~e are levied, but defer•r~ed, assessments on the AIC proper•ty for• water~main in the amount of $9,273.51 and ther•e ar•e levied assessments for~ sanitary sewer• with a balance yet to be paid of $3,196.76. The City Cler~k repor•ted that ther•e are no pending assessments on the pr~operty. Council discussed the matter and felt the same ter~ms and conditions given to other• pr•oper•ty owner•s in the ar•ea should be extended to AIC Cor~por•ation as well. Mrs. Scalze introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-6-256 - OFFERING THE AIC CORPORATION THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR PURCHASE OF TIiEIR PROPERTY IN THE CENTERVILLE ROAD AREA AS WERE OFFERED OTNER PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AREA, NAMELY THAT THE LEVIED ASSESSMENTS WOULD BE PAID BY THE SELLER AND TNE INTEREST RATE OFFERED WOULD BE EQUAL TO 1% GREATER THAPI THE INTEREST RATE BEING RECEIVED BY THE CITY , ON Cor c i ITS OTHEF2 IN~IESTMENPS ~tes.~~-~7-~'~7The for•egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr. Blesener•. Ayes (4) Scalze, Blesener~, Fahey, Collova. Nays (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted. This resolution appear~s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 261. Bow & The City Attor•ney r•epor•ted that in his opinion if an ar~cher~y r•ange is set Ar~r•ow up appropr•iately with defined areas, the City would incur no liability, Per•mit however, that does not mean the City would not be named in a lawsuit if Edward one occur~r~ed. Inman Scalze pointed out that most other cities do not allow the shooting of Agenda bows and ar•r•ows within their~ limits. Scalze did not believe the City Item No. 16 should issue the bow and ar~r~ow per•mit r•equested by Mr•. Edwar•d Inman. Ther•e was no motion put for•th by the Council for~ action on the Inman per•mi t r•equest. Page -21-