PRECA 08-13-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. ~ i conclusion that: the county involvement is necc;s u.ry is ir,c;ol•. - , -- .rect.. WE; intend. in another letter to discuss the: economir~;; of this question as well'as other considerations, C.~°: Acquisition, Sub=section 2.1 4 ~~. This section discussed that the~~local share ..costs of the ~ City of Ne:.~~Bri~h on will constitute the acquisition cost ' Yz. of ..the Long .hake Park land as funded by a Metropolitan Council Acquisition Grant. Nowhere in the documents is this quoted term defined in dollar amount or as a formula to derive r 3, the dollar amount. It is our position that the value of tie ' '~ =~' lnad to -.the New Brighton tax payers is the appreciated value f .'determinable in a current~•coridemnation procedure.- Costs to ' ~' then .County should be that value less New' Brigr,ton's propor= ,, . :.tionate share. Said sum would be a fair and reasonable return ~ to the New Brighton taxpayer..: We suggest further that the } represented purpose of the initial bonding referendum is referenced to determine what method of property sale if any :was contemplated at the time. A solution of course would be ~ to put this •to a voce of the New Brighton residents this fall. :~ 4 ~ _ y A.~ Acquisition,.,,Sub-section 2.3 Again`we disagree that the sale contingency to the -land .conveyance is .reimbursement to the city of its "local share ' .'-cost`." New Brighton acquired-the land and at present holds ~~ ~ . ~~ -"it"-"as a city .asset at current condemnation .value. We .suggest ~~ t ~ .- °, ,that not only should the consideration be re-ac~dreseed, but ;. ~. - that a further contingency- is• appropriate, which would be , ' approval of~the New Brighton voters. .~, • -- ~ Fx., ; Development, Subsections 3.1, 3.2, -and 3.3 ~ ~ - i ~~ k ~ . In that New Bri hton' s - ~ `~ g position with the park is highly:. questionable after 12-31-Sz a.s set forth in Article 7 of`the ~,Joint~Powers Agreement, we, rsco5ni.zing that the initial~ „; ;planning and development phase will set definite trends,- ' ~+ ;postures and realities, would encourage a much stronger t q ~ ~ :~positio~ for the city of New Brighton. Rather than approval ''}• ~~`~~' advice qr whatever, the city should strive for the lead position ~' ° ~ . :- .f.. using County resources where passible for development aspects E~ ~ addressed in thus section. ,{ ,, ..~ ' ~ ~~: ;~ F. Operation and Maintenance Subsection 4.1 ;•.R` We submit that an understanding; of County ordinances, policies ,` ~, k: and procedures should be drrived to realize the consequences ' '' ~ on the New Brighton public. Incongruities where determine$ ~f ~ 'should a dezlt' with, ~t the oree_ . ~, Again our sens~t~vity is ,- ~ ~h® eli~dination~ of our po~rer'al after 12-31-84.' - ~~; ~% ~~ ~ ~ ,t r'. is .. { { ' ~~ ~ . • ... Li ~ .4 +. ~ ~.K,.