My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 10-26-1992
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCP 10-26-1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:09:15 PM
Creation date
11/6/2006 2:40:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
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
<br /> -= <br /> Arden Hills Council 10 October 13, 1992 <br /> the property was obtained by the City to determine if it was <br /> obtained with conditions restricting the use of the <br /> property. He added that it may also be prudent to <br /> investigate conditions placed on adjacent properties to <br /> ascertain if those conditions may be affected by sale of the <br /> parcel in question. <br /> Councilmember Hicks stated that if it is decided that the <br /> parcel in question is to be sold, in fairness to the <br /> community, he would prefer advertising the property to the <br /> public to give all interested buyers an opportunity to <br /> submit bids on the property. Councilmember Malone <br /> concurred. <br /> Mayor Sather took the position that if the interested party <br /> is willing to pay a reasonable price for the parcel, the <br /> City should proceed with negotiation because, since the <br /> interested party is a developer, it is reasonable that his <br /> intended use of the property would be contiguous with <br /> existing development of the area. He reminded counci 1 that <br /> from the standpoint of the developer, time is of the essence <br /> because of impending inclement weather. Councilmembers --. <br /> Mahowald and Growe echoed Mayor Sather's position. -- <br /> Administrator Person stated that the 1991 appraisal was <br /> $26,000. Councilmember Mahowald questioned whether there <br /> would likely be any other interested buyers for this <br /> property. <br /> Councilmember Hicks explained that he is not advocating the <br /> usual real estate 1 isting type of advertisement, but would <br /> be comfortable with a notice in the newspaper that the <br /> property is being offered for sale. Councilmember Malone <br /> concurred. <br /> Administrator Person cautioned that staff is not normally <br /> involved in real estate negotiating so she preferred a <br /> closed bid process if staff is to be involved in the <br /> process. She reminded Council that the interested buyer is <br /> planning to appear before Planning commission in November <br /> regarding his proposed use of the property. Attorney Filla <br /> forewarned that if there is any abstract update work or <br /> rezoning required, those processes do take some time. <br /> Council direction to staff was to 1) Begin investigating the <br /> City's acquisition of the property in question to make a <br /> determination as to whether the property can be sold, 2) . <br /> Begin initial negotiations with the interested party, and 3) <br /> Publish a notice in the newspaper that the property is being <br /> considered for sale and interested parties are to contact <br /> the City. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.