HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.7.e. Executive Closed Session on McDonough Law Suits E x . ,-S� ` CTY,\ Q °I Q--, _2g,
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
Michael McDonough,
Plaintiff,
V.
The City of Rosemount, a
Municipal Corporation,
Defendant.
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT FILE NO. C7-92-006327
NOTICE OF MOTION
AND MOTION TO AMEND
COMPLAINT
TO: The Defendant above named and its attorney Mike
Miles. HERTOGS, FLUEGEL, SLEBEN, POLK, JONES &
LAVERDLERE, PA, 999 Westview Drive, Hastings,
Minnesota 55033.
NOTICE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on the 14th day of July, 1992, at
9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, the
undersigned will appear before the presiding Judge of the Dakota
County District Court, Dakota County Judicial Center, 1560
Highway 55, Hastings, Minnesota and will then and there move the
Court for the relief requested herein below.
�
Dated this day of �" vim— , 1992.
DAVID E. ALBRIGHT, P.A.
L* -M
Markethouse, Suite 205
289 E. Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (612) 223-8448
Atty. Reg. No. 165499
I
MOTION
Upon the Affidavit of Michael McDonough and the transcripts
to be supplied to the Court prior to the Motion hereof and
pursuant to Rule 15 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for
District Court and upon the entire record and file herein the
Plaintiff moves the court for leave to serve and file its Amended
Complaint in conformity with that attached hereto.
Dated this day of ��i�� , 1992.
-2-
DAVID E. ALBRIGHT, P.A.
By
David E. Albright
Attorney for Plaintiff
Markethouse, Suite 205
289 E. Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (612) 223-8448
Atty. Reg. No. 165499
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
Michael McDonough,
V.
The City of Rosemount, a
Municipal Corporation,
Plaintiff,
Defendant.
FACTS
DISTRICT COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT FILE NO. C7-92-006327
PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF
SUPPORTING MOTION
TO AMEND COMPLAINT
This matter arises out of an Agreement by the City of
Rosemount to purchase certain property from the Plaintiff, known
as the "Sunrise Builders Property" on Highway 3 in Rosemount,
Minnesota.
On December 17, 1991, the Rosemount City Council voted to
authorize the purchase of the property under certain terms and
conditions with respect to financing. The essential terms were
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) down payment, assumption of
the underlying financing with the First State Bank of Rosemount
and monthly payments to the Plaintiff for the difference in
those amounts. All of the documents had been drafted by the
City's attorney prior to the December 17, 1991 meeting. Those
documents were approved, by Resolution, on 4 to 1 vote with an
additional proviso that a reciprocal lease termination clause be
inserted into the contract. There is no dispute that the lease
termination clause was agreed to by Mr. McDonough and the City.
On December 17, 1991, the day the Resolution of Purchase
passed the City Council, there was a new Mayor -Elect and
Councilman -Elect who had not yet taken office. The new
Mayor -Elect was E.B. McMenomy and the new Councilman -Elect was
Red Staats. Both Staats and McMenomy disapproved of the
purchase. Shortly after the December 17, 1991 meeting
Mayor -Elect McMenomy approached Councilmember Harry Willcox and
indicated to him that "I am opposed to the McDonough purchase
and I will do everything I can to prevent it".
All Councilmembers voting at the December 17, 1991 Council
meeting have indicated that they considered the action to be
final with respect to the McDonough purchase as of the December
17, 1991 Council meeting. They did not intend or expect that it
would be re -placed on the agenda unless McDonough did not agree
to their additional term regarding the reciprocal lease
termination clause.
However, McMenomy knew that he would have a majority
necessary to defeat the motion as long as the deal was not
closed by the January 7, 1992 Council meeting. He therefore
asked City Administrator Stephan Jilk to re -set the matter on
the agenda of a future council meeting for the purpose of
-2-
reconsidering it. City Administrator Jilk did so at the request
of Mayor -Elect McMenomy. Mr. Jilk also did this in specific
violation of his instructions and the expectation of the
Rosemount City Council.
Pursuant to Jilk's and McMenomy's plan, nothing occurred
until the night of January 7, 1992 when the new Mayor -Elect and
Councilman -Elect Staats took office. This effectively changed a
4 to 1 vote in favor of purchasing the property into a 3 to 2
vote against it. Mayor -Elect McMenomy promptly tabled the
matter and brought it up for re -consideration on January 21,
1992 wherein the previous Resolution was rescinded and the deal
was killed.
As can be seen from the Affidavit of Mike McDonough, the
above facts were disclosed only yesterday in the depositions of
Mr. McMenomy and other Councilmembers. This Motion for leave to
Amend the Complaint results from this new information.
ARGUMENT
Rule 15.01 provides, inter alia, as follows:
it
. . otherwise a party may amend a pleading by leave
of court or by written consent by the adverse parties;
and leave shall be freely given when justice so
requires. . (Emphasis added)
The case law in this state clearly embraces and implements the
notion that "leave shall be freely given". A sampling of those
cases and their holdings are as follows:
Amendment of pleadings is liberally allowed even after
Judgment has been entered. Crum v. Anchor Cas. Co.,
119 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. 1983)
-3-
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, amendments are to
be freely allowed to encourage presentation of merits
of the controversy. Roberge v. Cambridge Coop
Creamery, Co., 67 N.W.2d 400 (Minn. 1955)
Liberality in allowing amendments to pleading is
greatest in the early stages of a lawsuit, decreases
as it progresses and changes to a strictness
ordinarily amounting to prohibition after the matter
is litigated and received the normally final sanction
of an adjudication by the trial court, affirmed by the
court of appeal by last resort. Todd v. Bettingen,
113 N.W. 906 (Minn. 1907)
The major consideration in a decision whether to
permit the amendment of pleadings is the prejudice
that may result and the burden is on the opposing
party to prove such prejudice. Metag v. K -Mart Corp.,
385 N.W.2d 684 (Minn. App. 1986)
In the instant case, there is no potential prejudice to the
Defendant by allowing amendment. As a matter of law, the need
to defend further claims and theories does not amount to
prejudice. The most recent and comprehensive analysis of this
issue is found in Enval v. Independent School Dist. 704, 399
N.W.2d 593 (Minn. App. 1987). The court therein ruled that:
"Ordinarily, unless a party opposing an amendment can
establish some prejudice other than merely having to
defend against an additional claim or defense, an
amendment will be allowed." Citing with approval
Hughes v. Micka, 269 Minn., 268, 275; 130 N.W.2d, 505,
510 (1964)
In
the
instant
case, it
is
clearly
in the interest
of
judicial
and
litigant
economy
to
have all
claims arising out
of
this sordid affair dealt with in one trial. Firstly, the City
is vicariously responsible for the torts of City Administrator
Stephan Jilk. Most, if not all of the witnesses would be
-4-
required to testify in both trials, if the Court doesn't grant
the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend and separate lawsuits result.
The Plaintiff seeks to add claims arising under the
original contract. Until June 23, 1992, the Plaintiff did not
know exactly who torpedoed the Plaintiff's deal with the City.
He now knows and is seeking to hold them responsible in this
forum. The claims against the additional Defendants, Jilk and
McMenomy, involve tortious misrepresentation and tortious
interference with either contract or prospective economic
relations.
I am sure that the Court is well aware of the elements for
a claim for misrepresentation. I will not belabor those
elements here. However, the law, with respect to tortious
interference with contract or prospective contractual relations
is less well known and I think the Court needs to know them so
that it may rule on this Motion. The elements for interference
with contractual relations are five (5):
1. Existence of a valid contract
2. Defendant knowledge of the contract;
3. Defendant's intentional inducement of contracted
party to refuse to perform his contract with
Plaintiff;
4. Defendant's lack of justification; and
5. Damages
19 a Dunnells Digest, Torts Sec. 2.00
Royal Realty Company v Levin, 69 N.W.2d 667.
-5-
Further, the Defendant cannot avoid liability because the
contract interfered with is within the Statute of Frauds, even
if that Statute makes the contract unenforceable as between the
original contracting parties. Royal Realty Company, v. Levin,
69 N.W.2d 667 (Minn. 1955)
With respect to interference with prospective contractual
relations, the elements are as follows:
Intentional and improper interference by inducing
another party to refuse to enter into a contract or
continue a prospective relation thereby preventing a
party from acquiring or continuing the prospective
relationship." United Wild Rice, Inc. v. Nelson, 313
N.W.2d 628 (Minn. 1982)
It is the claim of the Plaintiff herein that Jilk and
McMenomy interfered with either the contract or the prospective
contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and the City of
Rosemount. They did so by "stonewalling" the closing of the
transaction to buy time for McMenomy and Staats to take office
and kill the deal entirely. Although Mayor -Elect McMenomy may
have had the authority to do this after he was sworn in, he was
totally without authority to do so prior to January 7, 1992.
With respect to City Administrator Jilk, he specifically
disobeyed his instructions from the City Council and stonewalled
the deal in an attempt to curry favor with the new Mayor -Elect.
However, to do so he had to sell out his obligations to his
current employers, the currently constituted Rosemount City
Council.
-6-
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted
that this Court should grant the Plaintiffs leave to amend their
Complaint in conformity with the Amended Summons and Amended
Complaint attached herewith.
Dated this day of ��/" , 1992.
DAVID E. ALBRIGHT, P.A.
By G�
David E. Al right
Attorney for Plaintiff
Markethouse, Suite 205
289 E. Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (612) 223-8448
Atty. Reg. No. 165499
-7-
DAVID E. ALBRIGHT, P.A.
ATTORNEYAT LAW
Markethouse, Suite 205
289 E. Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
(612) 223-8448
Fax No. (612) 223-8394
June 24, 1992
Mr. Mike Miles, Esq.
HERTOGS, FLUEGEL, SLEBEN, POLK,
JONES & LAVERDLERE, PA,
999 Westview Drive
Hastings, Minnesota 55033.
Re: Mike McDonough v. City of Rosemount
Dear Mr. Miles:
Enclosed herewith and served upon you by United States Mail is the
Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion to Amend Complaint and the
Affidavit of Michael McDonough and the Plaintiff's Brief
Supporting Motion regarding the above -referenced matter.
If you have any questions or problems, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Yours truly,
I
U
David E. Albright
DEA/cat
Enclosure
Licensed in Minnesota & Wisconsin
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY. OF DAKOTA DISTRICT COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT FILE NO. C7-92-006327
Michael McDonough,
Plaintiff,
V.
The City of Rosemount, a AMENDED SUMMONS
Municipal Corporation, E.B.
McMenomy, only in his individual
capacity and Stephan Jilk in his
individual capacity,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS:
You are hereby summoned and required to answer the
Complaint of the Plaintiff in the above -entitled action, which
Complaint is hereto attached and herewith served upon you, and
to serve a copy of your Answer to said Complaint upon the
attorney for the Plaintiff within twenty (20) days after the
service of this Summons upon you, exclusive of the date of
service, and ifY ou fail to do so' Pp Plaintiff will apply y to the.
Court for the relief demanded in said Complaint.
Dated this day of _�`-
1992.
DAVID E. ALBRIGHT,
By
David E. Albright
Attorney for Plaintiff
Markethouse, Suite 205
289 E. Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (612) 223-8448
Atty. Reg. No. 165499
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
-------------------------------------
Michael McDonough,
Plaintiff,
V.
The City of Rosemount, a
Municipal Corporation, E.B.
McMenomy, only in his individual
capacity and Stephan Jilk in his
individual capacity,
Defendants.
DISTRICT COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT FILE NO. C7-92-005327
AMENDED COMPLAINT
COMES NOW the Plaintiff Michael McDonough and for his
Amended Complaint against the Defendants, alleges and shows to
the Court as follows:
COUNT I.
I.
That the Plaintiff Michael McDonough is an adult resident
of the City of Rosemount and the County of Dakota.
II.
That the Defendant is a municipal corporation formed and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Minnesota
pertaining to municipal corporations.
That on or about December 17, 1991 the Plaintiff and the
Defendant City of Rosemount entered into an Agreement for the
sale of certain real property known as the "Sunrise Builders
Property" which is located on Highway 3, Rosemount Minnesota.
IV.
That the Defendant agreed to purchase the property .for the
sum of Three Hundred Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($316,000.00) with
a Fifty Thousand Dollar ($50,000.00) cash down payment and
monthly payments on a balance of Sixty-six Thousand Dollars
($66,00.0.00) together with assumption of the underlying first
mortgage to the First State Bank of Rosemount of Two Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00).
V.
That subsequent to the contract, the Defendant breached the
Agreement on or about January 21, 1992 by renouncing the
Agreement and refusing to close.
IV.
That the Defendant's refusal to close the Agreement was not
brought about by any act or breach of the Plaintiff, but was a
conscious decision by the Defendant to simply change its mind in
that it no longer desired to purchase the property.
VII.
That the Plaintiff has fully performed on his part and that
demand for performance has been made and refused by the
Defendant.
'-2-
VIII.
That the Plaintiff has been damaged thereby in an amount to
be determined by the Court in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00).
COUNT II.
IX
Reallege the previous allegations of this Complaint as if
fully set forth herein at length.
X.
That during the period of late November and into early
January of 1992, the Defendant City of Rosemount, by its agents,
made the following representations to the Plaintiff:
a. That the deal was final and would need no further
City Council approval;
b. That the City, and its agents, were diligently
preparing documents for signature;
c. That the Plaintiff had nothing to worry about
with respect to the closing of the deal;
d. That the City and its agents were working
diligently for the purpose of having the deal
closed before the end of December, 1991;
e. That no problems had occurred which could have
affected the deal; and
f. That the City fully intended to close the real
estate transaction by the end of 1991.
XI.
That the City, through its agents, impliedly represented
that they were doing nothing to prevent the deal from closing.
-3-
XII.
That, upon information and belief, each of the above
representations was untrue.
XIII.
That the Plaintiff relied upon each of the above
representations to guide his actions, or inactions.
XIV.
That the Plaintiff has been damaged thereby in the amount
of at least Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) which was the
down payment.
XV.
That the Plaintiff has been further damaged by the City's
misrepresentations as set forth above in a separate amount in
excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) with respect to
expected losses on the foreclosure of the property, loss of
creditworthiness, interest, and other consequential damages
proximately caused by the City's misrepresentations.
XVI.
That the above representations were made by Stephan Jilk in
his official capacity as City Administrator and by Attorney Eric
Short in his official capacity, and under such circumstances
where they were the ostensible agents of the Defendant City of
Rosemount and the City is vicariously responsible for their
actions .
-4-
COUNT III.
XVII.
Reallege the previous allegations of this Complaint as if
fully set forth herein at length.
XVIII
That the Defendant individual Stephan Jilk made the above
representations and further represented to the Plaintiff, from
and after December 17, 1991, that he was doing all that was
possible to do to see this matter closed before the end of the
year and that all was going well toward that end.
XIX.
That at said time, Stephan Jilk knew or had reason to know
that all representations herein were untrue.
XX.
That the Plaintiff relied on each of these representations
to his detriment.
XXI.
That the Plaintiff has been damaged by Stephan Jilk's
misrepresentations, as an individual, in an amount in excess of
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00).
COUNT IV.
XXII.
Reallege the previous allegations of this Complaint as if
fully set forth herein at length.
-5-
XXIII
That on and after December 17, 1991 the individual
Defendants E.B. McMenomy and Stephan Jilk knew, or should have
known, that the Plaintiff had a contract for the sale of his
realty to the City of Rosemount, or at a minimum knew or should
have known that he had prospective advantageous relationships
with the City of Rosemount.
XXIV.
That the Defendants Jilk and McMenomy, with full knowledge
of the relationship between the City of Rosemount and the
Plaintiff, and without justification, sought to damage and to
destroy those relationships and succeeded in doing so.
XXV.
That Defendants Jilk and McMenomy acted as conspirators
with respect to the claims herein.
XXVI.
That the Plaintiff has been damaged thereby, in terms of
lost economic advantage, in an amount in excess of Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), together with attorney's fees
necessarily incurred in bringing this action against the City of
Rosemount, loss of credit rating and standing in the community,
worry, embarrassment, and financial woe in an amount in excess
of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00)-
-6-
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff Michael McDonough requests
Judgment as follows:
1. Money Judgment against the City under the purchase
agreement for the property in the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00).
2. Money Judgment against the City under the theory of
vicarious liability for the torts of Stephan Jilk and Eric Short
in the amount found by the jury of all damages incurred by the
breach of the City's contract as well as all damages flowing
from the misrepresentation of Jilk.
3. Money Judgment against Defendant Jilk in an amount in
excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) including
attorney's fees, loss of credit rating and standing in the
community, prejudgment interest and all other consequential
damages upon the theories of misrepresentation and tortious
interference with contractual or prospective contractual
relations, together with all damages caused by his conspiracy
with Defendant McMenomy.
4. Money Judgment against Defendant McMenomy in a sum in
excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars upon the theories of tortious
interference with contractual or prospective relations and
jointly and severally for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff
due to the on going conspiracy.
-7-
5. Such other and further relief as to the Court may seem
just and equitable.
Dated this day of
, 1992.
DAVID E. ALBRIGHT, PA
r -
By
Da d E. Albright
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Markethouse, Suite 204
289 E. Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (612) 223-8448
Atty. Reg. No. 165499
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The undersigned hereby acknowledges that costs,
disbursements, and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be
awarded pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 549.21, subd.2, to the party
against whom the allegations in this pleading are asserted.
DAVID E. ALBRI , P.A.
�P' Yea'
David E. Albright, Attorney
-8-
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
Michael McDonough,
Plaintiff,
V.
The City of Rosemount, a
Municipal Corporation,
Defendant.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
DISTRICT COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT FILE NO. C7-92-006327
AFFIDAVIT OF
MICHAEL MCDONOUGH
MICHAEL MCDONOUGH, being first duly sworn on oath states as
follows:
1. My name is Michael McDonough and I am the Plaintiff
herein.
2. That I attended the depositions of Rosemount City
Councilmember Klassen, Willcox, and Wipperman, together with the
deposition of Mayor Ed McMenomy on June 23, 1992.
3. That I make this Affidavit to set forth my
recollection of their testimony. As soon as the transcripts are
available, I will forward the relevant portions to the Court and
to Mr. Mike Miles who represents the Defendants.
4. That prior to the December 17, 1991 City Council
Meeting, a period of negotiations occurred between myself and
representatives of the City concerning the purchase of my realty
known as the "Sunrise Builders Property".
5. That those negotiations culminated in a Resolution
which was adopted on December 17, 1991 by the Rosemount City
Council authorizing the consummation of the deal. The City
Council's Resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
6. That the Resolution did contain a proviso that I agree
to a reciprocal lease termination clause. Discussions were had
between Eric Short, who was acting on behalf of the City, and
myself. I did in fact agree to the reciprocal termination
clause.
7. That I was told by Stephan Jilk and Eric Short that
everything was going along fine and that there were no problems
on the horizon and that there was no cause to worry. Rather,
the documents would be prepared by the end of the year and would
be executed without any need for further action by the City
Council or any other governing body.
8. That I was always ready to close on the deal.
However, although I didn't know why at the time, it seemed like
Mr. Jilk and Mr. Short were stalling because, although there was
no disagreement, the documents never seemed to be ready for
execution.
9. That I attended the deposition of Councilmember
Willcox yesterday, June 23, 1992. He testified that he had
-2-
personally called Attorney Short in December of 1991 and told
him to get the documents done and signed. Councilmember Willcox
further testified that he was contacted by Mr. McMenomy on the
evening of the December 17, 1991 City Council Meeting. He
testified that Mr. McMenomy stated to him " I am opposed to this
purchase and I will do everything that I can to stop it".
10. That Mr. McMenomy also testified, and I heard him say,
that he contacted Steve Jilk very shortly after the December 17,
1991 Council Meeting. He asked him to put the matter back on
the agenda for January 7, 1992. Jilk did this and.McMenomy said
that he did it because McMenomy asked him to.
11. That Councilmembers Willcox, Wipperman, and Klassen
all testified at their depositions that there was no need or
expectation that this matter would come back before the City
Council and that it was just a matter of Jilk executing the
documents drafted by Eric Short.
12. That two voting members of the Council in December of
1991 left the Council in January of 1992. They were Mayor Vern
Napper and Councilmen Oxborough. Both have told me that they
also intended this to be a final City Council action and that
all that was necessary was to actually execute the documents.
13. That Councilmember Willcox described Mr. Jilk's
actions as a violation of his duty and authority and further
that he should be reprimanded or even fired for what he did in
this case.
-3-
14. That Mayor McMenomy was sworn in on January 7, 1992 at
the regular Council Meeting. Prior to that he was not an
official of the City of Rosemount.
Further your Affiant sayeth not.
Dated this 2'% day of J�>v , 1992.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this a519 day of hi ne- -, 1992.
ary bli(Y ! NOTARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA
WASHINGTON COUNTY
4. ----My Cm-sam Enwes FEB. 19.19%
-4-
Z' t11. J taua.t
Council
1991, at
ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 17, 1991
to due ylofand
Rosemountthereof
duly heldregular
on Tuesday, December City
of the Cit
December17,
City
7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Mayor Napper called the meeting to order with Councilmembers Willcox,
Wippermann, Oxborough and Klassen present.
Mayor Napper led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Al Meyer, who was appointed to serve as the City's representative on the a
St. Paul South Light Rail Transit Corridor Advisory Committee, p
resesummary on the status of light rail transit proposed for Ramsey and Dakota
Counties. Mr. Meyer advised that although the advisory committee
recommended initiation of an Environmental Impact Study, it has been
decided to delay this study for possibly another three years. Mr. Meyer
described the projected costs, proposed locations of the light rail transit
corridor, and how this transit system could be funded through state and
federal funding. Mayor Napper thanked Mr. Meyer for his involvement on the
committee and the interesting information he provided. See Clerk's File
1991-42.
MOTION by Napper to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. SECOND by
Klassen.
MOTION by Napper to approve the Consent Agenda with the inclusion of the
recommendation to promote Eric Day to theMaintenance
Napper,Level
xboII positin.Klassen.
SECOND by Klassen.- Ayes: Willcox, Wipper, PPer
Nays: 0. See Clerk's File 1991-42.
Poll of original motion: Ayes: Wippermann, Napper, Oxborough, Klassen,
Willcox. Nays: 0.
Administrator Stephan Jilk presented for Council consideration and approval
a Contract for Deed, Loan Agreement and Lease Agreement regarding the
purchase of the Sunrise Builders property in the amount of $316,000.
Administrator Jilk advised the City would pay a $50,000 down payment, make
monthly payments on $66,000 and make monthly payments on a first mortgage
with First State Bank of Rosemount in the amount of $200,000. City
Attorney Eric Short reviewed the proposed lease agreement for Mr. McDonougl
to make payments of $750 a month for his continued use of the property for
up to three years. Following discussion by Council, Council agreed a
reciprocal termination clause should be includedin
and lease agreement an,
that the City would pay the property
Clerk's File 1991-42.
MOTION by Napper to approve the purchase agreements with Mike McDonough an
the First State Bank of Rosemount for the purchase of the Sunrise Builders
Property and the rental of the property to Mike McDonough at a rate of $75
per month for up to three years. SECOND by Willcox. Ayes: Napper,
Oxborough, Willcox, Wippermann. Nays: Klassen.
Parks & Recreation Director David Bechtold presented the Planning
Commission's recommendation for approval of the Parks System Master Plan.
Director Bechtold also presented an application to the Metropolitan Counc!