My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2005/02/28
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
Agenda Packets - 2005/02/28
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:46:39 PM
Creation date
7/31/2018 12:38:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
2/28/2005
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
2/28/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
142
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 February 14, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 11 <br /> <br />been made to get the best piece of land for the least amount of money, and he believed that the 1 <br />$700,000 number was good, but he would hate for the deal to fall apart because of a restriction of 2 <br />$700,000. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Council Member Stigney asked what cap he would be comfortable with. 5 <br /> 6 <br />City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich suggested putting the dollar amount from the signed purchase 7 <br />agreement into this resolution. 8 <br /> 9 <br />Council Member Flaherty asked if they would need to cover the costs of cleanup if that has to be 10 <br />done. 11 <br /> 12 <br />Deputy Chief Kruger stated that there is a stipulation in the purchase agreement that gives them 13 <br />until April 30th to get the testing done, and if it needs cleanup, then they will renegotiate or back 14 <br />out of the agreement. 15 <br /> 16 <br />Mayor Marty asked if that were the case if they would come back to the Council if there was a 17 <br />change or a renegotiation. 18 <br /> 19 <br />Deputy Chief Kruger stated that they would either be looking at another piece of property or 20 <br />figuring how it’s going to get cleaned up, whether with Superfund money or whatever. He stated 21 <br />that they are not locked in if there is a problem found on the property. 22 <br /> 23 <br />Finance Director Hansen stated that the other pieces of property they had been looking at were 24 <br />$150,000-$170,000 an acre, and this piece of property was more like $115,000 per acre, so even 25 <br />if a problem turned up, it might be better to do further negotiation rather than go someplace else 26 <br />and pay more money per acre. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Council Member Thomas stated she thought the number in the purchase agreement should be put 29 <br />into the resolution because a new resolution could be brought before the Council if further 30 <br />negotiations became necessary. 31 <br /> 32 <br />Council Member Stigney withdrew his amendment to the motion. 33 <br /> 34 <br />MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Marty. To put the dollar amount in the purchase agreement as a 35 <br />cap in the resolution. 36 <br /> 37 <br /> Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 38 <br /> 39 <br />Mayor Marty stated they would now vote on the resolution. 40 <br /> 41 <br /> Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 42 <br /> 43
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.