CCP 10-12-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 13,1999 7 oversight. He assumed that if the City Council moved forward with both the Base Bid and Bid Alternative #1, any additional costs incurred by the City Engineer would not make up for the difference in bids, Mr. Brown stated that this contract would be under an ongoing contract with the City. Mayor Probst requested Mr. Stafford's opinion of the recommendation by the City Engineer. Mr. Stafford stated that, although he had no direct experience with Nadeau Utility Inc., the nature of the work to be accomplished would lead him to believe that the contractor would have no problem getting the job done properly, The motion carried unanimously (5-0), Mayor Probst suggested that the City Council move on to the discussions of the conveyance of property from Arden Manor Mobile Home Park. C. Approving Conveyancc of Property from the Arden Manor Mobile Home Park Mr. Post eXplained that in 1999 the City proceeded with plans to upgrade the Arden Manor Park. The City Council discussed that the estimated $68,040 in site preparation and drainage costs should be the responsibility of the property owner in the form of cost participation or special assessments. The property owner was approached on this matter and would only commit to funding $10,000 for these improvements, When advised of the response of the property owner, tlle City Council directed staffto explore other alternatives, including a land conveyance in lieu of special assessments, Staff has met several times with the park owner on the land conveyance option and the park owner is amenable to this funding option, Mr. Post noted that this was option was not necessarily being endorsed by staff. Rather, it was simply an alternative presented to the park owner. Councilmember Malone stated that he recalled suggesting to staff an in-kind trade with the park owner in order to fund the proposed improvements, However, it had not been his intent that the City would acquire the park easement property. He would havc no interest in owning the park land as it would not benefit the City and he did not support this recommendation. His intent had been that the park owner provide the City with easements for future City improvements. Councilmember Larson asked how large the park easement property was. Mr. Post stated that the park easement property was 3.61 acres and was located to the west of the City's access easement. Mayor Probst statcd that when the City Council had discussed funding options for the park improvements, he had interpreted Councilmember Malone's suggestion the same way as staff. He was not sure that he would agrcc that acquiring this land was not beneficial. The recommendation of staff would give the City fee title to 3.61 acres and the facilities.