Laserfiche WebLink
=IMM11111r <br /> I <br /> LAW OFFICES <br /> BRIGGS AND MORGAN <br /> PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION <br /> 2200 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING <br /> SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101 <br /> TELEPHONE (612) 223-6600 <br /> FACSIMILE (612) 223-6450 <br /> MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE <br /> August 25, 19932400 IDS CENTER <br /> MINNEAPOLIS,DIRECT DIAL NUMBER MINNESOTA 55402 <br /> TELEPHONE(612)334-8400 <br /> FACSIMILE(612)334-8680 <br /> (612) 223-6420 <br /> Jerry Linke Samantha Orduno <br /> Mayor City Clerk-Administrator <br /> 2319 Knoll Drive Mounds View City Hall <br /> Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 2401 Highway No. 10 <br /> Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 <br /> Don Brager <br /> City Finance Director Tim Cruikshank <br /> Mounds View City Hall Management Assistant <br /> 2401 Highway No. 10 Mounds View City Hall <br /> Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 2401 Highway No. 10 <br /> Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 <br /> Re: Everest Tax Increment Request for Buildings "M" and "N" <br /> Dear Samantha and Gentlemen: <br /> Upon arriving at work this morning, I found a rather large packet from Everest, <br /> including a letter dated August 24 from Tim Nelson, on these proposed projects. <br /> I-have—nothail-time to-do muchmzo e-than-ta leaf-through-these-materials.From-- <br /> that cursor review, however, it appears that Everest is takinga very similar approach to the <br /> one they presented for Multi-Tech. It appears that they have independently acquired the <br /> property in question. They represent there have not been any tax increment proceeds used <br /> to defray their acquisition costs. They then wish to have a 90%/10% division of the "new" <br /> increment for 13 years. In their draft purchase agreement they would again make the <br /> completion of the project for the new user contingent upon Everest having received a <br /> suitable tax increment package from thCity. This is similar to the Multi=Tem situation, <br /> except that in the current form they are being more specific about the level and duration of <br /> tax increment, explicitly stating the 90%/10% split and the 13 year duration. <br /> While I am not in a position to read anybody's mind,it seems as though the approach <br /> being taken continues to be one where the assumption is made that, since the increment <br /> would not exist without the completion of the new project, the developer is entitled to the <br /> lion's share of that increment for a rather substantial period of time. To me, that is not the <br /> appropriate way to view such requests; rather, the essential question for the City revolves <br /> around the determination of true need for the assistance, and then at what amounts and for <br />