My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2004_0719
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2004
>
CC_Minutes_2004_0719
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:30:37 AM
Creation date
2/13/2006 12:22:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/19/2004
Meeting Type
Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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 />City Council Study Session - 07/19/04 <br />Minutes - Page 18 <br /> <br />value was based on current property use, and that particular use <br />may not be in compliance with the proposed redevelopment use <br />(i.e., truck terminals versus Roseville's preferred use). <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing noted that some current use may be valued <br />higher than the proposed use; Mr. Noonan concurred. <br /> <br />Mr. Casserly noted that parcels were being purchased that <br />contained structures that were of no value for the proposed <br />development. Mr. Casserly noted that the current property <br />owner still needed to realize a sales price recognizing the market <br />value of the parcel, and the building on the property, even though <br />not usable in the new development. Mr. Casserly further noted <br />that this created a situation in which demolition of the existing <br />building needed to occur, and any underlying contamination <br />issues, over and above the cost of the purchase of the property. <br />Mr. Casserly stated that this situation (i.e. building cost, <br />demolition, possible asbestos contamination, removal of <br />footings, and possible removal of infrastructure that has no <br />functional re-use) all added up to value to the seller, but not to <br />the purchaser. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan continued to express concern regarding the <br />value of what the City was incurring for the site acquisition. <br /> <br />Mr. Casserly and Mr. Johnson further detailed the need for the <br />purchaser to pay the seller the assessed building value, even if <br />the building had no future benefit to the developer and would <br />require demolition. <br /> <br />Mr. Noonan addressed the public policy issues before the City <br />Council as they consider the proposed redevelopment of the <br />Twin Lakes area and how they defined good public interest and <br />whether it had merit for the City's future. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification on how the City <br />justified property acquisition, based on perception of which <br />businesses were appropriate. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding use of existing facilities and site <br />improvements; and the collective "we" paying for acquisition of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.