My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2000/02/14
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
Agenda Packets - 2000/02/14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:46:28 PM
Creation date
8/29/2018 2:47:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
2/14/2000
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
2/14/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
104
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 March 22, 1999 <br />Regular Meeting Page 34 <br /> <br /> <br />Council Member Marty inquired if the Children’s Home Society would take the playground <br />equipment with them. <br /> <br />Assistant to the City Administrator Schmidt stated they could do so, as long as they do not <br />default on the contract. <br /> <br />Council Member Marty stated it was his impression that anything that is permanently affixed to <br />the property, becomes the property. <br /> <br />City Administrator Whiting stated this was a good point. He explained that if the Children’s <br />Home Society was to leave prior to the five-year period, and take the playground equipment with <br />them, he would suspect the City could either attempt to purchase this equipment at a discount, or <br />attempt to negotiate for new playground equipment with the new tenant. He stated the <br />Children’s Home Society had made the entire decision regarding the type of playground <br />equipment at the facility, and he was not certain it would be anything the City would want, <br />although it is new, and looks good. <br /> <br />City Administrator Whiting stated the main concern he has had, in acting as a negotiator on this <br />matter over the last two or three years, has been in terms of getting them into the building, <br />keeping them in, and securing the cash flow for the operation of the facility. He stated this was <br />the primary concern, and the penalties that this agreement imposes, compared to the conditions <br />of the first agreement, are an attempt to secure that cash flow for the facility. <br /> <br />City Administrator Whiting during consideration of this matter by the previous Council, there <br />was some recognition that simply having the Children’s Home Society services available was a <br />benefit to the community. He commented that this was something they would continue to have <br />to make a judgment on, however, this had opened the door to considering an alternative to the <br />initial agreement. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin interjected that at this time they had approximately 23 minutes left of the <br />meeting, and although he did not wish to rush the people’s business, he would like to move <br />forward, so they could get as much dealt with as possible by the 10:00 deadline. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney stated he had two questions, one pertaining to the rent. He stated the <br />original contract specified that the Children’s Home Society was going to for the year, in <br />advance, however, it would now be paid quarterly for the first year, and monthly thereafter, <br />along with a contingency regarding the number of children at the facility. He stated they were no <br />longer paying in advance, therefore, the City should be charging them interest for the delayed <br />payments. He indicated this money was not going into the City’s coffers, adding that any bill he <br />pays late, or on a monthly basis, he is charged interest on. <br /> <br />City Administrator Whiting stated he had created this understanding with the Children’s Home <br />Society because they had expressed they would have a difficult time coming up with $30,000 in <br />advance, and they had discussed doing this for the last three or four months. He stated in regard <br />to whether or not interest should be charged on what might be interpreted to be a late payment, it <br />should be noted that with the original agreement, and in the preceding years of this agreement, <br />they would be paying one month in advance. He explained that on January 1, they would pay <br />$2,500, for the entire month of January.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.