My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-13-2007
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
08-13-2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 9:24:51 AM
Creation date
7/20/2010 9:51:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
8/13/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council August 13, 2007 <br />Regular Meeting Page 10 <br />Mayor Marty said that future development may not occur on the site, but he would support • <br />moving the lines to the easement or increase the easement to encompass the power lines. <br />Director Ericson explained that the City does not usually take easements for private utilities, but <br />the City could take more easement and then the Xcel lines would be in the City's easement. <br />Mr. Sargent said that it makes sense to move the lines, but they would like to just do that once to <br />save the Church money. <br />Mr. Sargent said that park dedication fees are usually assessed because there is pressure or <br />additional use for the parks, but in this case, nothing will be happening, so he would propose <br />putting the park dedication with any future development. <br />Mr. Heltzer said that he would like his utility issue cleared up, as the Church is the subdivider of <br />the property. <br />Council Member Flaherty asked why the power line bothers Mr. Heltzer. <br />Mr. Heltzer said that the Church obviously intends to move forward with other plans, and he <br />would like this dealt with now. <br />Mayor Marty commented that in order to subdivide, there has been a park dedication fee • <br />required, as the City is pretty well built out, and park dedication is harder to come by. Mayor <br />Marty explained that the park dedication funds really help out with the parks and allow the City <br />to be able to do things for the parks without asking the residents to pay additional ta~ces to <br />support the parks. <br />Mr. Sargent suggested that they will be getting attorneys involved with this situation. Mr. <br />Sargent said that the Church has gone with the City suggestion, and this process has been taking <br />a very long time. Mr. Sargent said that there are those that need and want to se11 the property to <br />make money for the Church, and are not as willing to keep this out of litigation. <br />Mayor Marty asked whether the comments regarding attorneys were meant as a veiled threat. <br />Mr. Sargent indicated that there is a real possibility that attorneys will be involved if this matter <br />does not get resolved. <br />Mayor Marty infortned Mr. Sargent, and the Church, that he does not appreciate being threatened <br />in any way. <br />Director Ericson said that last year, the Minnesota Legislatwre adopted new rules regarding park <br />dedication fees, and there is a clause in the Code that indicates that any subdivider of land <br />assessed a park dedication fee, may challenge the fee, and the fee would be put into escrow and a • <br />judge will review the details and make a decision. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.