My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1996/12/02
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
Agenda Packets - 1996/12/02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:51:23 PM
Creation date
6/18/2018 1:40:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
12/2/1996
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
12/2/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
118
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
CITY OF REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section 5 <br /> • <br /> STAFF REPORT Report Number:96-1915WS <br /> GUMS Report Date: 11/26/96 <br /> ;� WORK SESSION MEETING DATE <br /> December92, 1996 <br /> "�,, a <br /> o8rejr'Partnetsk4' <br /> • <br /> Item Description: Discussion of Everest's Most Recent Response Regarding Building N <br /> Administrator's Review/Recommendation: <br /> -No Comments to supplement this report <br /> -Comments attached. <br /> Explanation/Summary(attach supplement sheets as necessary) <br /> Summary: <br /> Everest has provided each one of you with a lengthy response to the EDA's final proposal regarding a tax increment <br /> assistance package for the development of Building N. <br /> This information does not bring us any further on a resolution for the project even though the EDA clearly identified <br /> our final offer in my letter to them dated November 19, 1996. I discussed some of the items with our Bond Counsel <br /> Jim O'Meara and he is not even aware of the Roseville projects. Contrary to Everest's accusations, lawyers within <br /> firm do not typically consult each other on the projects they are working on for different clients. Mr. O'Meara <br /> contends that he is only making recommendations that would be in the best interest of the EDA regarding this <br /> particular project. It is the EDA's right to agree or disagree with those recommendations. I know that Roseville's <br /> ikects are much more costly and difficult to market due to the severity of hazardous substances and costs to <br /> olish structures and prepare the land. What should be remembered is that each agreement must be reviewed <br /> separately not in a vacuum with other communities and other projects. <br /> I put this on the agenda to clarify if the EDA would like to take any additional action or stand firm on our final offer <br /> regarding Bldg N assistance. <br /> Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the information Everest provided on November 22, 1996. <br /> Ogi &-/A4V-4--- <br /> Cathy Bennett, rector of Economic Development <br /> • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.