09-27-2004 EDA Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

EDA MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 2004 DRAFT 46 EDA Member Dahl moved to appoint EDA Member Carlson Vice President. EDA Member Reinert 47 seconded the motion. 48 49 Motion passed unanimously. EDA Member Stoltz absent. 50 51 Ms. Divine indicated EDA Member Dahl was Treasurer in 2003. 52 53 EDA Member Bergeson moved to appoint EDA Member Stoltz as Treasurer. EDA Member Dahl 54 seconded the motion. 55 56 Motion passed unanimously. EDA Member Stoltz absent. 57 58 Ms. Divine indicated items four through eight could be done in one motion. She read the 59 appointments. 60 61 EDA Member Bergeson moved to recommend items four through eight continue with the same 62 individuals and agencies as stated in the Staff report. EDA Member Reinert seconded the motion. 63 64 Motion passed unanimously. EDA Member Stoltz absent. 65 66 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 04-01 AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF 67 PROPERTY AT 6508 HODGSON ROAD 68 69 EDA Member Dahl moved to open the public hearing at 6:18 p.m. EDA Member Reinert seconded 70 the motion. 71 72 Motion passed unanimously. EDA Member Stoltz absent. 73 74 Ms. Divine summarized the Staff report, indicating Staff recommends approval. 75 76 EDA Member Bergeson asked if the action of the EDA was positive, the item would come to the City 77 Council for approval. Ms. Divine explained that the City Attorney advised the property was 78 purchased by the EDA, so it is being sold by the EDA. It does not need to go to the City Council, but 79 needs to be approved by resolution by the EDA. 80 81 EDA Member Carlson asked what other property in the city the EDA owns. Ms. Divine indicated she 82 is not aware of any other property, nor is she sure why the EDA bought this parcel, except that it was 83 a tax forfeiture at the time and the City Attorney must have advised Staff to purchase it through the 84 EDA. EDA Member Carlson stated she spoke with Mr. Grochala about this property earlier today, 85 and then became concerned there may be other parcels in this same scenario. 86 87 EDA Member Dahl asked again why it would happen that the EDA owns the property rather than the 88 City. Ms. Divine stated she does not know, and unfortunately the City Attorney is not in attendance 89 to shed light on the subject. She indicated that she would guess that because it was Anoka County 90 property, and because of the tax forfeiture issues that this was the best way to do it. 2