Minutes - Council - 08/09/2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Councilmember Wise stated that he missed the last meeting, but upon watching it on TV, he heard the gentleman from Anoka County Parks say they have no intention of taking this property. Councilmember Wise proposed that the city write an MOU stating that if the parks decide at a fixture date to take this land, they would have to pay 150% of market value; therefore, no encumbrances are put on the current property owner. Mayor Ramsey responded by saying that the county probably wouldn't agree to that. City Attorney Goodrich confirmed that the language could be put in the agreement, but he is uncertain the county would agree to it. Additionally, he is uncertain that more than mazket value may be paid because the county may not have the legal authority as a public purpose to use public funds that way. Associate Planner Gladhill voiced that before Anoka County Parks can get to their plan, it must first go to Comprehensive Parks System Statement. That's the process they're trying to follow to get to their Master Plan. Mayor Ramsey said that although it's good to offer up different solutions, he doesn't know that it fixes the property owner's problem because he thinks the property owner wants it removed completely from the plan. Councilmember Look summarized that the Comp Plan is tied up with Met Council not approving it. In order to adopt it in its final form, we must address this pazcel and its fixture as park or not. The Met Council can approve the plan tomorrow if need be. It has nothing to do with the city; it is between the Met Council and the county, and they need to contact each other and work it out. They also need to understand that there are ramifications to our planning and zoning and the things we need to accomplish here in the city. The message that needs to be sent to them is that it is out of our hands, we're wasting too much staff time and it's costing us money. Councilmember Dehen questioned what the best way to handle this is without jeopardizing the property owner's rights. City Attorney Goodrich said take it out of the plan. It would eliminate any concern that the property owners would have, although, he's not sure if the political entities involved would accept it. Taking it out of the plan is what the homeowners would want. Councilmember Dehen asked what the cost or problem would be with doing that. Associate Planner Gladhill explained that the cost involved is the staff time to see the procedure through. No consultant dollazs are needed at this point, but staff time of 10 to 20 hours would be needed to attend two meetings with Anoka County and two meetings with Met Council to ensure that the process is followed through. Councilmember Dehen inquired if there is a better way to go to remove it. If the MOU requires less time, what is the conflict. City Council /August 9, 2010 Page 6 of 13