Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 12 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Council to vote on purchase of Mexico Lindo land
Published Saturday, October 24, 2009
The Albert Lea City Council has been presented with the opportunity to purchase property on Main Street, formerly the location of Mexico Lindo, at a reduced rate.
If purchased, the property, which is being sold by Emil Olson Farm Properties, would remain as a park or public recreational area with a memorial to Emil Olson. The land would tie into plans of the city and Shell Rock River Watershed District to convert the area into a public access point at the channel — which is really the first stretch of the Shell Rock River. The channel runs between Fountain and Albert Lea lakes
Anglers can often be seen lining up on this space and the area between Main Street and Bridge Avenue during spring, summer and fall.
City Manager Victoria Simonsen said independent appraiser Helgeson Appraisals & Realty appraised the property at about $475,000.
Under the purchase agreement, which will be voted on during the Monday City Council meeting, Emil Olson Farm Properties is asking for $25,000, with the remainder of the value of the property to be donated to the city.
The one stipulation is that the property has to stay a public place or park.
“I think it’s fair to say there could have been options to have a mixed use for the property,” said City Attorney Lee Bjorndal, noting the possibility of commercial on one side with a park on the other. However, if the agreement is agreed upon, this would not be an option.
Simonsen said she thinks the Watershed District will be able to reimburse the city for the $25,000 — which is mainly to cover closing costs — and then the city would be responsible for the demolition of the former restaurant.
The bigger vision for the area is to connect the channel to the Blazing Star Trail, she said.
In 2008, the city applied for a redevelopment grant administered by the state Department of Employment and Economic Development to acquire the land, but did not receive it.
Simonsen said the city will soon be applying for grants again this year for this project.
During the Monday meeting, the council will also:
Vote whether to authorize a loan out of the city’s Economic Development Revolving Loan fund to Interstate Packaging for $200,000.
The loan will assist the company in equipment purchases that total more than $300,000.
If approved, the loan would be repaid over seven years. It would help add three or four full-time jobs by the end of 2010.
Simonsen said Community Development Director Bob Graham can support the loan request at a 5.25 interest rate, which is the amount outlined in the loan policy.
Interstate Packaging is requesting a lower rate of 3 percent interest.
Council members discussed whether to approve a variance in the policy, which currently outlines that the interest for the loans be at prime plus 2 percent.
Other loans approved through the program have also been approved at lower than what is outlined in the policy.
Officially vote to use the lower level of the Jacobson Apartments Building, 211 S. Broadway Ave., for the new Vitality Center.
Simonsen said it is still the goal to have the building ready to open at the beginning of 2010. She hopes it will be an example to other downtown businesses.
Grant funding, donations and in-kind gifts would be used to remodel and furnish the space.
The last occupant in the building was 1994.
Vote whether to approve new agreements for ice time at City Arena with the Albert Lea Figure Skating Club and the Albert Lea Hockey Association.
Last year, use of the ice was billed at $130 an hour.
Councilor Vern Rasmussen questioned whether there should be an increase in this rate.
Simonsen said Austin charges $145 an hour.
Vote whether to authorize a grant agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Office of Aeronautics to receive state financial aid in 2010 and 2011.
The state will reimburse two-thirds of the maintenance and operations costs for a maximum of about $37,000 each year.
Hear a presentation about the Albert Lea Port Authority’s annual 2010 budget.
City code requires the Port Authority submit its budget to the council for approval each year.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by justmealmn (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
does the city need this property and does the Shell Rock Water District have that kind of money to reimburse the city? Will I am sure its a done deal even before the council votes.
Posted by HockeyDad (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why does the city of Albert Lea continue to believe that they are in the business of owning property? Yes, the $25,000 is a great buy, but they still must tear down the existing stucture and develop park land on a property that is in proximity to the Blazing Star landing, but as of yet is nothing but a waste of government money as well.
The city council has to start to stand up and do the right thing. Voting with whatever Victoria wants is not always what is in the best interest of the city. Please councilers have the inclination to do what is right for Albert Lea, especially considering that by locking that property into park land could actually harm Albert Lea in the future.
Posted by tinker (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think this a great idea. It will open up the area more and give the trail another access point. Great for the local fishermen in that area also
Posted by soberandclean (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 12:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree it would be great for fishing.But as a city i don't belive spending the money is in our best intrest..also why does the city arena always want more money...everyone has taken a lose with the economy..it's not about what Austin gets....we are not Austin!We live in a city were good jobs are hard to find..unlike Austin who employ alot of Albert Lea residents..we need to focus on our city.Not any other city and what they get..Our budget is alot different then theirs..
Posted by HockeyDad (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
soberandclean,
Actually what the article on the arena is about is what the hockey association (the kids) are charged for each hour of ice that they use. The city, or at least Vern Rasmussen would like to raise it, however this is a double edged sword, (that is why they stated that Austin does charge $10/hr more). The hockey association has a budget the same as the city, and if the city raises the rate per hour then the association either has to raise their rates to make up for it, or they cut down the hours they purchase, in the end all that happens is to have a the arena sit empty for more hours per day and less work being preformed by the staff. It costs the same to the city (basically) to run the ice whether someone is skating or not skating.
It would actually be in the better interest of the city to either shut down an entire sheet of ice, or to lower the per hour rate of ice time. It would also be better for the city to charge the Thunder a higher rate as this is an organization that does not live here and already pay taxes that support the arena.
Posted by tinker (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
what else do you suggest to get rid of this eye sore. Nobody wants it? It is getting worse everyday. Is anyone else interested in this property at this time. Something has to be done with it. The city will eventually be responsible for getting someone to get rid of it anyway.
Posted by wildthing (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Should have been the new home of the kfc but everyone wants by the interstate because its easy money. This city needs to develop the farm land site and the money should have been used there for access for the boat landing since there is parking there already. How long has the farmland site been empty. How much to this city give to that company and now we are talking about giving more money to another company for equipment. I see a repeat here does anyone else and it only going to help get 3 or 4 more jobs. Come on people wake up we need more then 3 or 4 more jobs added to this area. Don't repeat your same mistakes over again. Tell me we have learned something from the past ones.
Posted by SunMan (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When there is a flood people complain that nothing was done to prepare for the flood or comment how vulnerable businesses should not have been located there.
When businesses don't grow or come to Albert Lea, people complain that nothing was done to foster conditions for business creation and growth.
When businesses leave, people complain nothing was done to keep them here.
All the city-council-wannabees posting here fit right in with this disgusting pattern of complaining.
WHY DON'T YOU STATE YOUR BETTER PLANS AND THEN RUN FOR CITY OFFICE?
Are you averse to doing responsible things and prefer to just be whiners?
I say hats-off to city leaders in their efforts to balance budget constraints/woes with tough economic climate, all while trying to stimulate and develop a longer term plan for the city. They have the courage to put their names on the dotted line AND TRY, unlike the anonymous whiners who know-all, but do-nothing on this site.
Posted by OldTrojan (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 11:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SunMan: Welcome to this site. We are proud to have you as the newest whining, non-courageous, digusting complainer, and know-all poster! Greetings! You are off to a great start!
Posted by HD (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 11:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think picking up this important piece of property is a good move. This may come as a surprise to SunMan, based on comments made in other threads. It might be 40 or 50 years before we would have another opportunity like this.
As long as the City is not responsible for appears to be an inflated appraisal, go for it.
I would like to see the Farmland site develop too, but other than Walgreens wanting to best parcel, we have not passed up any great opportunities. I would prefer it to sit undeveloped rather than make a mistake.
Posted by Intheknow (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 12:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So was this the same independent appraisal company that was used to justify the inflated price per acre the city manager recently paid for property out by the arena?
What is really going on?
Posted by wildthing (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am sorry sun man did I step on your toes. I have talk with my council members on several occasions and alot of the time I feel like I am just a broken record so I state myself in here. That is the great thing about this country FREE SPEECH.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)