Agenda Packets - 2003/03/24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council March 10, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 17 difficult to pursue without knowing where they are. He then said he has been in contact with 1 Northwest Youth and Family Services in an attempt to contact the former tenant. 2 3 MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Postpone approval of Resolution 5969 to Allow Staff 4 Time to Attempt Further Collection Efforts. 5 6 Council Member Quick asked whether Staff felt it would be possible to collect any of the 7 outstanding amounts or if this would be a waste of time and money. 8 9 Finance Director Hansen indicated he had no issue with postponing and carrying out the directive 10 to make further efforts on Calvin Academy and create a website to list the outstanding debts that 11 will be published in the newspaper. He then said that Staff has expended the amount of effort 12 that is prudent based on the outstanding amount. 13 14 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 15 16 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Direct Staff to Take No Further Action on Red Oak 17 Estates Until the Outstanding Amounts are Paid in Full. 18 19 Council Member Quick asked for an explanation of Red Oak Estates. 20 21 Interim City Administrator Ericson explained that Red Oak Estates is located at the southwest 22 corner of County Road H2 and Long Lake Road that was proposed for 72 townhome units and 6 23 were constructed. He further explained that the developer and the City have been involved in 24 ongoing litigation but the litigation has stalled. 25 26 Council Member Stigney asked for a legal opinion as to whether the motion would harm the City 27 with the legal case. 28 29 City Attorney Riggs indicated the motion could impact the litigation and recommended not 30 adopting it. He further explained that nothing would happen with Red Oak Estates until the 31 litigation is resolved and then only after City approval. 32 33 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that Longview Estates is the same developer and 34 there is an outstanding legal balance on that development as well. He then asked whether 35 Council wished to restrict activity on that property as there is no litigation and there could be a 36 proposal before Council at any time. 37 38 City Attorney Riggs indicated the City has the ability during the subdivision process to require 39 payment for the City’s expenses incurred and, if another application is submitted, that matter 40 would be negotiated with the developer. 41 42 Council Member Stigney indicated that, based on the comments of the City Attorney, it may be 43 more prudent to do nothing with it rather than open the door for a litigation problem. 44 45