10/05/1998 Park Board Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 8, 1998 John asked Mr. Tautges where was the City's greatest exposure in the year 2000. (John was referring to the possibility of computer problems that could occur because the computers may not recognize the year 2000.)Mr. Tautges felt that the county was the greatest concern. The City is currently taking steps to avoid any problems with the internal computers, however,the City should be checking with all of the City providers to be sure that they are also addressing this concern. John said that he was disappointed that the currently computer equipment purchased three (3)years ago did not address the year 2000 concern. The City is in the process of replacing all financial computer hardware and software to avoid any problems. John asked where the Shoreview debt was in the audit. Mr. Tautges explained that it is shown as a correction of an error on page 52. Kim thanked Mr. Tautges for making the report user friendly. She requested that the Council review the Executive Summary Report and be prepared to discuss the audit at the next work session. She also asked Dave to have staff bring back an action plan to address the concerns noted in the Management Report. HOUSE REMOVAL AT 1410 CANFIELD TOM JACKSON Tom presented the background on this matter noting that on October 13, 1997, the City Council had approved an Order for Removal of a Hazardous Building. The home had burned and the site is now considered an"attractive nuisance". The owner had been certain that the building could be salvaged and rebuilt,however, nothing has been done to date. Currently the owner is proposing to sell the site and does have a purchase agreement. He has not given the City a copy of the agreement. Kim felt that there had been sufficient time to conclude this situation. Mr. Hawkins felt that the City has been more than generous and recommended that the City Council approve the Order for Removal. The procedure is as follows: the City Council obtains bids to remove the structure and a court order to proceed with the actual removal of the building. These two (2) actions take time so that in reality, the owner will have plenty of time to complete the sale of the property, if he wishes, and the new owner will have time to secure a building permit for rebuilding the home. Caroline felt that the City is responsible for the safety of its residents and could see nothing to prevent proceeding with the removal order. This matter is on the Council agenda for Monday. LINO AIR PARK UPDATE, DAVE AHRENS PAGE 4