My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-07-1997 WS
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
07-07-1997 WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:48:50 PM
Creation date
6/29/2018 5:11:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
7/7/1997
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
7/7/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
71
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
Item No. 9 <br /> Staff Report No. 97-2149WS <br /> Meeting Date 7-7-97 <br /> III Type of Business WK <br /> WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; <br /> CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business <br /> Mounds View City Council <br /> Work Session Staff Report <br /> To: Mounds View City Council <br /> From: Cathy Bennett, Director of Economic Development <br /> Item Title/Subject: City Owned Property Draft Inventory/Plan Ideas <br /> Date of Report: July 2, 1997 <br /> Attached is a draft inventory list of City and EDA owned property. This list has been circulated <br /> throughout each department and does not include City Hall, public works buildings and city designated <br /> parks. There are still several gaps in the inventory list with regards to original purchase price and <br /> expected use but this is a start. <br /> I contacted several cities regarding policies/plans regarding City owned property. Most of the Cities <br /> have informal understandings rather than policies: Roseville designates a use for all the property that <br /> they own as part of the comprehensive plan and will only lease or provide an easement agreement if <br /> 0 someone is interested in the use of that property. This allows Roseville long term control of the <br /> property but the benefit of a user improving the area. New Brighton's informal procedure is similar in <br /> that they designate a use for each parcel and if an interested buyer does not want to comply with that <br /> use then they do not sell or lease the parcel. The New Brighton representative I talked to said they <br /> are pretty strict in that interpretation. Fridley has a more formal process whereby if the property is <br /> designated as excess, then they will sell it to an interested party through an ordinance procedure. If <br /> the property is owned by the HRA, then they are only required to market the sale of the property <br /> through a public hearing and the price and process is negotiated. I have calls into several other Cities <br /> and may have more information for you at the work session. <br /> I bring this information forward for more discussion prior to drafting a policy. I would like the <br /> Council's feedback regarding your desired goals for City owned property and what issues you would <br /> like addressed in a formal or informal policy. <br /> Ill <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.