Laserfiche WebLink
City of Centerville <br />July 28, 2004 <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br /> 2. Personnel Policy <br /> <br />Discussed at work session. <br /> <br /> <br />3.Purchase Agreement, 1601 LaMotte Drive <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft reviewed the purchase agreement for 1601 LaMotte Drive with <br />Council and indicated that there are several items within the agreement that concerned <br />him. He then said that there are significant deed restrictions including the requirement <br />that the property be used for a public purpose which would be difficult, or impossible, to <br />remove should Council wish to do so. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated that the document allows for an easement right around the <br />lake. He then said that he would look into whether that is necessary as he thought they <br />were selling those easements back to adjacent property owners. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated there is another easement over the public raw water <br />conduit that is 30 feet wide centered on the raw water conduit. He then noted that it <br />states there is a pipe from a well and that will be cut off and left abandoned. <br /> <br />Mr. Palzer explained that there must be a pump to run water. <br /> <br />Council Member Capra asked whether the City would be able to use part of the property <br />for rainwater runoff for LaMotte. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated he would clear up all these easement issues and, if they <br />want to keep them, that is fine but then the price needs to reflect that and how that affects <br />the City’s use of the property. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated that the document requires that the City undertake <br />annexation proceedings for the portion of the lot that is in Lino Lakes and that is not <br />necessary and will not happen. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated that the document has date discrepancies for purchasing <br />the property and closing deadlines that he will work out. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated that throughout the document it indicates that the City <br />would pay the attorney’s fees if the seller has to enforce any of its rights but in Section <br />19.09 it states that the seller and buyer are to pay their own attorney’s fees. He then said <br />that can stay as it does not negatively impact the City. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft cautioned the City that, if all the easements are required the City <br />may not be able to have a dock or gazebo as was the plan for the property. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated that he was told that this is a working draft of the <br />document and he expects to work with the seller on changes to the document. <br />Page 8 of 10 <br /> <br />