Laserfiche WebLink
Couneihnember Kurak explained the original resolution contained the words "loan application" <br />and "purchase of". She thought if there was going to be authorization of the purchase of property <br />it should come to the Council as a case. <br /> <br />Ms. Ruehle indicated the words in the guidelines state "purchase of the property". The Met <br />Council indicated if the City is not comfortable they can change the language into "the <br />negotiation of the purchase". After review, that is what most of the other cities have done. <br /> <br />Councihnember Kurak explained there are a couple of other issues with the case that brought her <br />to bring it forward. She had a question regarding the address that does not match the address on <br />the mailbox. The other thing is that there was already a dollar figure included, which she felt that <br />should be discussed, including the ramifications that would have on the future purchase of the <br />property. She felt this was important enough for the Council to talk about as opposed to putting <br />it on the consent agenda. <br /> <br />Regarding the address on the mailbox, Mayor Gamec indicated in the past when houses or <br />buildings were removed people may have kept the mailbox with the other address. <br /> <br />Councihnember Zimmerman asked when the funds would be reimbursed into the revolving fund. <br /> <br />Ms. Ruehlc replied the City would receive money immediately for their costs when MnDOT <br />comes in to purchase the property for the project and pays back the Met Council. <br /> <br />Councihnember Zimmerman commented that could be ten years. This will not be classified as a <br />project until work is started on the whole stretch. <br /> <br />Ms. Ruehle explained the City does not hold that debt, it is held by the Met Council. It does set a <br />precedent somewhat because it becomes public information, but the appraisals were done fairly. <br />The comparables ranged from much lower to much higher. They may not be quite where the <br />property owners would like them to be, but as they move through the process there will be other <br />opportunities to reach a fair value that will be acceptable to the property owners. <br /> <br />Cotmcilmcmber Cook noted this situation is a little different than the residences that were on <br />commercial property. <br /> <br />Councihnember Pearson asked what the time limit is on the purchase of the properties with the <br />RALF funds. <br /> <br />Ms. Ruehlc replied there is no time limit. <br /> <br />Councillnembcr Cook inquired about relocation costs and the fair market value. <br /> <br />Ms. Ruchle replied Mr. Miller would be eligible for the relocation costs. She left a handbook of <br />the state requirements with him to review. In the other cases it would be the tenants that are <br />eligible for the relocation costs. It is quite involved in terms of how long they can get money for <br /> <br />City Council Work Session/June 8, 2004 <br /> Page 3 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />