Loading...
2004-05-10PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. MOUND CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA © 67-/ MONDAY, MAY 10, 2004 - 6:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS & PARKS FACILITY 2. 3. 4. 5. Call meeting to order Preview by Jim Prosser of Ehlers & Associates and Kandis Hanson, City Manager Tour of Parks Facility, including Island Park Hall Additional presentation and discussion, at City Hall Adjourn 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 CITY OF MOUND PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com To: From: Date: Subject: Mayor, City Council Members Kandis Hanson, City Manager May 7, 2004 Discussion of Public Works and Par'ks Facilities City staff has identified the need to address the facilities currently used for Public Works and Parks vehicle and equipment storage and operations. The preliminary review indicates problems with both the Public Works and Parks buildings includh~g: · 1. Currem building conditions require improvements to support level and t)q0e of services provided. 2. Neither building meets City building code. 3. The buildings contain conditions which pose health and safety concerns. 4. Building facilities do not provide sufficient storage for equipment an~d vehicles. There are a number of issues and concerns that need to be addressed in the review of solutions to this matter. Recognizing this, the May 10th meeting is intended to accomplish the following: · On site inspection of the Parks facility. · Discuss the need for a process (including public participation) to gain public awareness and, if appropriate, develop solutions to the facilities needs. · Identify City Council issues and concerns about initiating a process to address the facilities needs at this time. It is important to note that the result of this meeting is not intended to identify a solution to the facilities need now but rather to discuss appropriate strategies that will lead to a solution at some future date. Staff is prepared to discuss a possible public participation process developed by Ehlers & Assoc. which have been successful in other communities on similar issues. Mr. Jim Prosser will be in attendance and prepared to discuss their process. Additionally, staffwants Council to be aware that property owners adjacent to the Public Works facility have recently contacted the City in regards to the future status of their properties. Owners have indicated they are interested in the City purchasing their properties but if the City is not interested they will consider making improvements. Staff requests direction in this ma'tter. Thanks you for your kind consideration. Sincerely, City Manager printed on recycled paper JOHN B. DEAN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9207 Email: jdean~kennedy-graven.com April 23,2001 Greg Skinner Public Works Department City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Land Acquisition Alternatives Dear Greg: In a recent conversation, you informed me that Mound may be interested in acquiring a parcel of land for water plant expansion purposes. You indicated that although the actual expansion may be several years away, there may be an opportunity to acquire one of the parcels now from a willing seller. You have asked me to outline a number of alternatives available to the city in purchasing the property. A. The alternatives are as follows. 2. 3. 4. 5. Immediate cash purchase. hnmediate purchase subject to a life estate in the seller Immediate purchase and lease back of the property to seller Option to purchase with the option period being as long as several years. Purchase under contract for deed. B. The alternatives can be evaluated from the city's standpoint as follows. 1. Alternative 1 is the cleanest in that you own the property and it is not subject to any further interest of seller. However, for that reason, it may be undesirable for the seller who will need to find a new place to live. It also requires that the city come up with the entire purchase price right away. 2. Alternative 2 is much like the first one with two exceptions: First, the seller can stay for life. That means no need to move out. Second, the value of the life estate can be used to offset the purchase price. The big drawback for the city is that the seller may live beyond the date you need the property; and some sort of buy-out provision would be needed in the instrument creating the life estate. The cost of the buy-out under these circumstances might be high. JBD-195036vl M U220-4 Greg Skinner April 23, 2001 Page 2 of 2 3. Alternative 3 is like 2 except that the term can be stated in the instrument. The value of the leasehold can be used to offset the purchase price. (Seller would probably want some sort of clause that would stop the offset in the case of death etc.). 4. Alternative 4 would be a very favorable one for the city because, it could avoid any significant financial exposure until the option had to be exercised. It could be used in conjunction with any of the other alternatives that are mentioned in this letter. The main drawback is that it is the least favorable to the seller, who will have no assurance that the city will ever purchase his property. This could be softened somewhat by giving the city a right of first refusal, or the right to exercise its option if another bona fide offer were received. 5. Alternative 5 allows the city to make payments over time (up to 5 years). The contract could also provide for the seller to have continued possession (for a stated period), and could even have some sort of offset for continued possession such as in 2 or 3 above. I have not attempted to suggest which of the alternatives the city should chose. Each has some benefit, and none of them would be ill advised under the appropriate circumstances. Equally important, you need to know what the owner might be willing to accept; and you should also have some feeling for the timing of the project and the availability of other necessary lands. Respectfully yours, John B. Dean JBD-195036v2 M U220-4