Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON JULY 8, 1996 <br />( #10 - Saga Hill Park Land Acquisition - Continued) <br />Callahan said if the 9.5 acre tax forfeit parcel was at some time used for other purposes <br />than general park use, the City would be required to forfeit the parcel back to the <br />County, who would resell the land. The City could purchase the property and have no <br />restriction on it. This scenario is not in the current plans but is a possibility in the future. <br />The Minnesota Land Trust is viewing the two parcels together. Callahan said if the <br />agreement was made and use of the land changed, the DNR has the veto right. The DNR <br />could allow the City the change the use of the land if replacement land is found <br />elsewhere. The condition of the Minnesota Land Trust conservation easement would be <br />a separate agreement with another entity involved other than the DNR. The question is <br />unanswered as to what will occur if the conservation easement with the Minnesota Land <br />Trust is not approved by the Council. If the Council does not agree to the conditions of <br />the DNR, the grant will not be received. <br />Moorse concurred with the above analysis. <br />Callahan said the Council has already made the decision to take the 9.5 acre parcel with <br />an easement, which is a separate issue from the 11 acre parcel. The decision for the <br />Council is whether the DNR grant should be accepted with the amendment placed on it <br />excluding the 9.5 acre parcel. <br />Callahan said he believes it would be a mistake in regards to public policy to take land • <br />that is tied up forever. Any changes would also involve modification by two other <br />agencies. He noted it would not affect this Council's plans, but conditions could change. <br />Kelley was informed that the grant could not be obtained if Orono did not participate in <br />the land acquisition. The grant is required to be made in the name of the City. <br />Jabbour noted that all of the groups involved were working towards the same goal but <br />with differing facts. Jabbour suggested proceeding, once all agree that the 11 acre parcel <br />be separated from the 9.5 acre parcel, and amend the grant application. Council <br />concurred. Jabbour then suggested taking the grant with the DNR conditions if found to <br />be satisfactory to the Minnesota Land Trust. <br />Hurr said she supports the grant, which is supportive of a possible parking lot and some <br />structure, but is not supportive of a conservation easement. <br />Callahan said he favored the conditions of the DNR if they are as stated and no more. He <br />was unsure if the description clarified the conditions of the DNR. <br />Kelley clarified that if the grant was taken with the DNR restrictions, the City would be <br />the owner of the property. If any upgrades were made, it would be the responsibility of <br />the City and not the DNR. The City would maintain the property. The DNR would have <br />no title to or mandate of the property. 0 <br />14 <br />