Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />. <br /> Arclen Hills CCluncil 7 DE:lCernO.::" I 1<r, 1 ':-I~;::" <br /> prop",rty f"ol' salo and 'received no bids "From other .i nter (,~sted <br /> buyers, and 3) Negotiations continued with Edgewater Estates <br /> Partner"3hip to arl-ive at an agl-eeable price. <br /> Person reported that the final result of negotiation is an <br /> offer from Edgewatcn~ for a PUl.ctldse p)"i.;e of $28~SOO with <br /> the condition that the City incur the cost of removing the <br /> existing lift station f'(om the subject property. Sh.::? added <br /> thai: a 1901 appra.isal of the property was $26,000 with the <br /> lift station removed. <br /> Person noted the advantage of selling the lot WOIJ 1 d be t;1aL <br /> the buyen l,as a gOI)d developmsllt l~eco"(d wi ~:.h th.c.: C it>' and <br /> intends to develop the lot consistent with adjacent <br /> townhomes development. She stated the possibLe disadvantage <br /> is that iemoving the lift station may have complications <br /> which could result in higher than expected costs to the <br /> City. <br /> Councilmember ~1alone commented that the subject property <br /> appears to be landlocked and its intended use by Edgewater <br /> appears to be the only reasonable use of the land. He added <br />. that since there has been no interest expressed by any other <br /> buyer, he would be inclined to finalize negotiations with <br /> Edg'9water' . <br /> Councilmernbel' Mahowald commented that i T1 fc:\liewl ng <br /> infol-rnatioll as to comp81-able sales, it appeal-S Edgewatsl"s <br /> offer is faiT and would allow for the be:=:;t use of t.he <br /> prop,",ty. He favol-ed proceeding witll the sale d~ <br /> negotia-ted. <br /> Counci.lrnembe-r Hicks commented that Edgewate-r's offer is <br /> $28,500 with no pa-rk dedication, and costs for ri~moval of <br /> the lift station are to be incurred by the City. He said <br /> that in this case, park dediGation may not bi.) an Impc,rtant <br /> consideration, but he woulc.l pr:2f,sT ~;c, Sf~]], the prl)p,,3rty fe)! <br /> $25,000 as is J nlakit19 the buyel- l-espon:3ible to r i:::f1l0\/<;: t h~,::, <br /> lift:. '3t8tion. <br /> Peison 2::aicl that arT"angement was considered, but the 1991 <br /> appraisal of $26,000 assumed the l-erno\/,al of the 1 i ft:. <br /> st_ation. <br /> Councilrnernber Growe said this does not:.. appear to bf:' '3 pr irfle <br /> 101'. ,:)nd 81'1<:;0 v.JOuld 1,)r? I. nc 1 i n~;>d to acc.::pt Edg{:~IJJdtel- '~3 off'2l'_ <br />. M.-:I/O'I' Satf','z;f cornrnentc-!d that:. taxpayers wculc! b~ bett.?]' ':-:::.S':"'f,:;:-,j <br /> hi '3i011ii'iQ 1:.. he: propi:;rty and hdl.,! i n9 i t, l~;;"(~-()n,,~ t..,:.'l.Y.-Jb 1.0.' . Hi? <br /> added the i-_ continuity of dev810pment would also bl:' J. plu:::.:.:" <br />