My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-11-2006
MoundsView
>
City Council
>
EDA
>
Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
12-11-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/6/2018 11:54:43 AM
Creation date
8/6/2018 11:54:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV EDA
EDA Document Type
Council Packets
Date
12/11/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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).
View images
View plain text
Mounds View EDA November 13, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 2 <br /> <br /> 46 <br />Director Ericson indicated that an appraisal was requested by the owners for IRS purposes, the 47 <br />City had one done, and the EDA authorized preliminary environmental analysis, as there were 48 <br />other uses in this area prior to it being vacant. He then said that an auto repair shop on Silver 49 <br />Lake Road, a home, and a couple of dump sites were identified and the findings indicated that 50 <br />because of some hazardous contamination a further recommended analysis should be done to 51 <br />include soil borings and water analysis on the site. 52 <br /> 53 <br />Director Ericson indicated that Staff does not think that there is any contamination on this parcel 54 <br />but prior to accepting it the City should take a look at this and rule out that possibility listed in 55 <br />the study done in the 1990s. 56 <br /> 57 <br />Director Ericson indicated that Bonestroo has submitted a proposal for handling the further 58 <br />environmental analysis and Staff recommends approval of Resolution 06-EDA-225 Authorizing 59 <br />the Additional Environmental Review not to exceed $3,700. 60 <br /> 61 <br />Commissioner Flaherty indicated that the Phase I and Phase II reports done in 1997 and in 2001 62 <br />came back virtually negative on the site and he is wondering what has been on the site that would 63 <br />change the report. 64 <br /> 65 <br />Director Ericson indicated that there is nothing that he is aware of. 66 <br /> 67 <br />Commissioner Flaherty said he does not feel that another assessment is necessary if the intention 68 <br />is to keep this green space for the future. 69 <br /> 70 <br />Commissioner Flaherty asked what are the taxes received from this parcel right now. 71 <br /> 72 <br />Director Ericson indicated that this is a marginal property that may not be buildable as viewed by 73 <br />the County so what is generated in taxes is minimal. He then said that the analysis did identify 74 <br />some trace chemicals but where the contamination was found was not on this site. He further 75 <br />indicated that, because it was found there, the rationale for moving forward with additional work 76 <br />is to rule out that it has not migrated to this site since there was a dump site on this property. 77 <br /> 78 <br />Director Ericson indicated that to the untrained eye of Staff there is nothing that seems to be an 79 <br />issue but Staff feels this would be an “insurance policy” for the City. 80 <br /> 81 <br />Commissioner Flaherty indicated that he would like to save the City $3,700 and, if there is 82 <br />nothing substantial coming in from this parcel in taxes, he would like to designate it as open 83 <br />space. 84 <br /> 85 <br />Commissioner Thomas said that she is not willing to take over any property that the City does 86 <br />not have a known clean documentation for liability purposes for the future. She then said that 87
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.