Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />October 14. 1986 <br /> <br />Council Business. continued <br /> <br />Williams hopes that staff and consultants are comfortable with <br />the situation when they recommend agreements and trusts they look <br />beyond the success of a project to the small unfortunate chance <br />that the development will not work. and would like to know what <br />the city's liability is. Not putting up dollars until a building <br />is complete is great. but Williams questioned the contingency of <br />a project not being successful. <br /> <br />Benke stated that was the purpose of the cash flow and the number <br />crunching on each tax increment district. Benke further stated if <br />a developer loses by foreclosure. that is a risk as we do not get <br />that increment flow and we get whatever residual value comes out <br />of the build ing. <br /> <br />Schmidt requested staff to pull a copy of every Development <br />Agreement the city has signed (going back to the Medical Center. <br />Winfield Development. Rush Lake Business Park. etc. and particu- <br />larly the Water Ridge project) to look at the security and <br />collateral provisions of some of those Agreements as he believes <br />they are different from what is proposed with Senden's project. <br /> <br />Locke had nothing to add to the staff report concerning specifi- <br />cations for a building removal and authorize advertisement for <br />bids. <br /> <br />Benke asked clarification that the agreement includes cleaning up <br />after removal; Locke responded affirmatively. <br /> <br />Motion by Williams. seconded by Benke. to APPROVE THE SPECIFI- <br />CATIONS FOR BUILDING REMOVAL IN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT <br />NO. 6 AND AT 784 FOURTH AVENUE N.W. AND TO AUTHORIZE ADVERTISE- <br />MENT FOR BIDS. <br /> <br />4 Ayes - 0 Nayes. Motion Carried <br /> <br />Proper had nothing to add to the staff report concerning plans <br />and specifications for an iron removal facility. <br /> <br />Motion by Brandt. seconded by Williams. to APPROVE THE PLANS AND <br />SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW IRON REMOVAL FACILITY <br />INCLUDING MODIFICATIONS TO WELL #8 AND RAW WATERMAIN AND <br />AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS. <br /> <br />4 Ayes - 0 Nayes. Motion Carried <br /> <br />Locke had nothing to add to the staff report concerning a <br />request by the New Brighton Area Historical Society for a city <br />contribution toward the depot renovation project. <br /> <br />Sinda did not believe the city had ever waived permit fees and <br />suggested using dollars from the Centennial Commission in order <br />not to set a precedent. and noted the SAC charges cannot be <br />wa i ved. <br /> <br />Page Seventeen <br /> <br />Building Removal in <br />TIF District No. 6 <br />Report 86-245 <br /> <br />Iron Removal Facility <br />Plans and Specifi- <br />cations: Proj. 86-3 <br />Report 86-246 <br /> <br />NB Area Historical <br />Society request for <br />city ass i stance <br />Report 86-247 <br />