My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_0410
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_0410
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:37:16 AM
Creation date
5/15/2006 11:55:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
4/10/2006
Meeting Type
Town Hall
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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 Regular Meeting - 04/10/06 <br />Minutes - Page 21 <br /> <br />Mr. Krass concurred with Councilmember Pust's summary <br />and conclusions. <br /> <br />Maschka moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution <br />No. 10397 entitled, "Resolution Authorizing a "Quick-Take' <br />of Certain Parcels Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 117.042;" <br />Procedure for Already-Condemned Parcels Necessary for <br />Construction of Twin Lakes Boulevard and Other Public <br />Roadways;" pursuant to the Development Agreement <br />between the City of Roseville and the developer. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough sought clarification from <br />Councilmember Pust as to her position to commit to Eminent <br />Domain by speaking in favor of this motion. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust spoke in support of making sure the <br />City lived up to its contractual obligations that had already <br />been approved by previous Councilmembers. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson concurred that the contract was the <br />contract, and the City had obligations under that contract; <br />reiterating that the actual issue of Eminent Domain was not <br />before the Council tonight, only accepting appraisals and <br />authorizing "quick take." <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that each step was a policy <br />decision, and questioned how quickly possession could be <br />provided to developers to start construction. <br /> <br />Mr. Krass responded that the developer had expressed <br />preference to begin the roadway as soon as possible; and <br />with Council approval of the resolution, the City would <br />provide notice immediately and any time after the 90 days <br />for making the deposit would change the title. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her opinion that pending <br />litigation and watershed district approval needed to be <br />completed prior to a change in possession; and further <br />opined that the City Council should have overwhelming <br />reasons not to authorize the resolution. Councilmember <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.