My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 06/24/2008
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
2008
>
Minutes - Council - 06/24/2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2025 1:56:41 PM
Creation date
7/14/2008 8:30:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
06/24/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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 />Mayor Gamec stated that this was a pretty distressed property and he thinks people knew that in <br />order to get it cleaned up it would take extra funds. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen stated that the City won't get an increase in tax base from this property, <br />nor will any new jobs be created, because it is just for an outside storage space. He asked what <br />would happen if the City said that it would sell the property for what it paid or just wait until <br />someone else comes to buy the whole parcel. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that the chances were, the City wouldn't be able to sell it. <br /> <br />Economic Development Coordinator Sullivan stated that when there is an appraisal for purchase, <br />it takes into consideration the highest and best use for valuation. He stated that, the City does not <br />have an official appraisal, but a letter of opinion, that values it as industrial, not commercial, <br />which, in the letter was between $3.00 and $3.25 per square foot. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen asked if the property was industrial when the city purchased it. <br /> <br />Economic Development Coordinator Sullivan stated that it was industrial when the City <br />purchased it, but typically you see the price of the property as what someone is willing to pay. <br />He stated that he has made it clear to Mr. Perkins that the Council would decide on the sale price <br />for the land. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen asked what the price difference would be if the City set the price at the <br />higher end of the scale, at $3.25 per sq. ft., rather than the lower end. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich noted that this would be about a difference of $8,000. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen stated that she has been involved in most of the EDA discussions <br />about this property. She stated that this is an existing business that is in need of more space and <br />if the City doesn't give them the space to grow, there is a risk that they will move out of the City. <br />She stated that assuming that the City will get what it put into something is a mistake, because if <br />that were the case, the transaction could have taken place on the private market. She stated that <br />the City has interest in the long term upgrade of blighted properties. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated that the City acquired this property through eminent domain and if <br />it hadn't, KIH may still be in possession of the property. He stated that his problem is when the <br />City pays a certain price and justifies it for business retention, which he feels benefits some <br />businesses over others. He stated that the City paid $3.83 per sq. ft. and Mr. Perkins is offering <br />$2.98 per sq. ft. <br /> <br />Economic Development Coordinator Sullivan stated that staff is recommending the price be <br />$3.00 per sq. ft. per the letter of opinion from the appraiser, but noted that the Council could go <br />to the higher end of the range of $3 .25 per sq. ft. and he could support that. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look asked if the company who gave the City the letter of opinion was the same <br />one who did the original appraisal when the City purchased the property. <br /> <br />City Council / June 24, 2008 <br />Page 12 of 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.