My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1986-04-22
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Minutes - City Council
>
Minutes 1986
>
1986-04-22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2005 5:23:52 AM
Creation date
8/11/2005 11:59:37 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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 />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />April 22, 1986 <br /> <br />Hedlund agreed, but asked why a price couldn't be negotiated; <br />Benke stated that earlier action means we will be looking at <br />that in the immediate future. <br /> <br />Hedlund asked why the contracts had not been eliminated; Benke <br />stated the earlier discussion is specifically in that direction, <br />considering other opportunities and other changes. <br /> <br />Locke indicated he had met with Hedlund to start that process <br />and the city intends to continue to work out some arrangement on <br />the land; the critical point at this time is that the item <br />before the council is neither the Development Agreement nor <br />Hedlund's relationship to the land, but the plat and the PRD <br />request. <br /> <br />Schmidt stated when council proceeded with the Water Ridge <br />project, it did so on the basis of certain commercial <br />development taking place on the north side and a residential <br />project on the south side of Tenth Street, all having to have a <br />certain value, which was going to be included in the city's Tax <br />Increment Financing District. On the basis of the guaranteed <br />values made by the developer in the Agreement, the city sold <br />bonds and that is the money that is being used to buy the homes; <br />now we are in the process where the developer defaulted on the <br />Letters of Credit to secure our commitments in this project and <br />Hedlund's land was a piece of collateral that was put up for the <br />Agreement. <br /> <br />Schmidt continued that the city has, in fact, proceeded with the <br />develop- ment and the developer has defaulted and the earlier <br />action was to notify them they were in default and to proceed in <br />getting another developer for the site, because the city is <br />committed to a project on both sides of Tenth Street and all of <br />the matters will be taken care of. The city has no intention of <br />jeopardizing the project with a plat that is in no way in <br />compliance with the previous Agreement and the basis for the city <br />selling the bonds. <br /> <br />Benke stated the purchase of Hedlund's property was one step in <br />a multi-step process; the default and other problems came <br />between the city's starting the process and before the city got <br />the part of the process where we would actually acquire owner- <br />ship of Hedlund's land. Benke stated the city is at the point <br />where the whole package needs to be redesigned and Locke and <br />Hedlund have already started the project. <br /> <br />Hedlund asked what needs to be done to make progress; Locke <br />indicated the city has started looking at appraisals and will <br />continue to work with Hedlund to get the matter resolved. <br /> <br />Motion by Schmidt, seconded by Williams, to WAIVE THE READING <br />AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING <br />PRELIMINARY PRD-46 AND PL-144. <br /> <br />4 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried <br /> <br />Page Nine <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.