1982-12-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I City.)' New Brighton Decp!!"r 14, 1982 Mayor Harcus made the fallowing statement for the record: "Earlier this year we were told by staff that we would be fully reimbursed for the expenses that we have incurred. Unfortunately, staff later found out that they left out the major expense; the bond interest. Despite my request to staff to include the cost data in the City Hall newsletter which was forgotten or ignored, no public information has been disseminated. While I have lobbied with members of the Metropolitan Council for equitable reimbursement, the response has been poor because they knew that I was in the minority of this Council. I believe most studies have indicated that suburban residents pay substantially more for regional services than they receive. r believe that if we take the attitude of 'take it or leave it' and approve the land transfer without formally requesting the Metropolitan Council to modify the plan and fully reimburse the City we are failing to do our jOb, which is to represent our residents not the region. rf the Metropolitan Council rejects our formal request, then we have two choices: reject the plan and develop a small City park or look for alternative uses such as residential or commercial development with a small park. I realize most members of the Council are under the impression that we have no choice because of the use of Federal Funds. However, I have never seen a legal opinion that said we had to use the entire property for a park. Nor have I seen a legal opinion on what the consequences would be if we reimbursed the Lawcon money. It might even require special legislation from our Congressional delegation. Based on the resident survey - 55% favored no additional development - I would bet that the majority of residents in this City would prefer to see taxable development over a expense generating park. I note that the staff prepared resolution states that the City will continue to seek reimbursement after the transfer. I hope no one on this Council believes that we will get anything after our only bargaining chip has been transferred. In my opinion what the City gets from this land transfer is: -Partial reimbursement; -Partial development with a promise to develop the rest over a ten year period; -A long term committment to fund almost half the operational costs; -A possibility that we could end up funding the entire operational costs of a regional sized park if the County's financial state worsens. -5-