Laserfiche WebLink
Case #2: Section 12.5 Sales of Real Property <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that the Commission had talked about Section 12.5 at their January <br />19 meeting. The concern was about the sale of City-owned property; currently it requires an <br />ordinance to sell such property. The ordinance is effective 30 days from the date of publication to <br />allow for residents to petition against the ordinance. The City has come into another phase in its <br />life and is selling property. The park land and City Hall facility is basically what was owned in the <br />past. He felt there was no need to worry about Council selling park property; that land is dedicated <br />to the public. In order to sell, the City would have to go through a significant process. The City <br />has never sold park property since he's been with the City. It would have to go before District <br />Court and they would ask if it's in the public's best interest. If you get rid of Section 12.5, you <br />would still not have to worry about park property but the City property could get sold by Council. <br />They could also disburse and collect funds. There has to be a corporation or partnership, such as <br />an EDA; they could then sell the property without restrictions by Charter. You could also allow <br />property not to be sold with a 4/5 vote of the Council. That's how rezoning is - it requires a 4/5 <br />vote. You could require no sale of real property without a public hearing; however, they may not <br />be of much value because they may not conjure up much reaction. <br /> <br />Chairperson Steffen questioned why this section gets put into Charters in the first place. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich explained that it's in the League of Minnesota Cities Model Charter and it probably <br />hasn't changed in 50 years; however, most cities have other vehicles to use. <br /> <br />Chairperson Steffen noted we have it but do not use it. He questioned if there is a valid reason to <br />have it in the Charter. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that Council is already given the authority to deal with our dollars. <br /> <br />Chairperson Steffen commented on a concern he heard about neighbors not being aware of what is <br />occurring. <br /> <br />Mr. Deemer stated that the City has exempted itself from park fees on the first development. The <br />City should "take from Peter and pay Paul" meaning the park fund should get some money. <br /> <br />Chairperson Steffen felt that was a policy issue and is beyond the scope of what we are doing here; <br />keeping or removing this section will not affect that policy situation. He asked if there is any other <br />ramification of removing this section from the Charter. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich read the model charter with regard to Section 12.5. <br /> <br />Chairperson Steffen suggested it sounds like there is no apparent reason to keep this section in the <br />Charter. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich agreed that there appears to be no other ramifications to removing it. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder reported that in discussion with City Attorney Goodrich relating to Section 12.5, <br />Mr. Goodrich has stated "we can live with this one way or another". This issue was originally <br />raised because of a recent property acquisition and sales. The owner did not have clear tire at time <br />of financing. That was a problem for the bank so we decided to see if the Charter had a way to <br />work things out. Since that time, we have worked out timing issues. If Charter is uncomfortable <br />with making this change, we will live with it fine. If you feel it's a lame provision from a model <br />charter, we are okay with that too. <br /> <br />Charter Commission/April 20, 1995 <br /> Page 4 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />