07-22-1985 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

dealing with a change in owner of record. Further it has been indicated that although some of the veterans groups have agreed to help fund the camp there may be at least one of the major groups which has declined to provide any financial support for improving the camp. As a side note i discussion with an individual with the Park Reserve District ,oat they do have an interest in utilization of that property for part of the new Suburban Regional Park System and intend to tender an offer for option within the next 45 days to the Big Island Board of Governors. The State has indicated that if they are required to do any fixup or removal that such will be taken out of anymonies that are due to the Board of Govenors upon transfer of title. It is assumed that if assessed the Board of Governors will have to take any monies out of any eventual sale price on the property. (That assumes that there would be a sale if the buildings were removed by the City, however the City may have to "carry" the money for any costs insued until such time as the Board of Governors would have funds available.) Should the Park Reserve District be in a position to take over the property they have indicated that any related expenses for demolition would hive to be part and parcel of a negotiated sale agreement. RECOMMFN:)AT I ON In light of the impending ownership change together with the recent ruling oy the Court of Appeals in New Brighton regarding hazardous building proceedings, it is staffs recommendation at this point that the following be done: - That copies of the proposed resolutions be sent to both the State of Minnesota/Department of Veteran's Affairs and Big Island Board of Governors indicating that these will be considered at your August 12th meeting. - At that August 12th meeting that the resolutions be considered and that would be the start of the 20 day time period and subsequent to those resolutions being passed that they be filed with the District Court. The recent New Brighton ruling, although a different factual case than what we have present, stated that the actions they had taken constituted a taking of the property and that the property owner needed to be compensated, although they turned down compensation for any attendant suffering. It is our understanding at this point that the difference is that the City of New Brighton did not allow the property owner the opportunity to fix up the property and also that there was no indication that the order was given by the District Court. Should you have any further questions or comments please feel free to contact me. a