My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2005/08/22
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
Agenda Packets - 2005/08/22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:49:37 PM
Creation date
8/1/2018 10:26:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
8/22/2005
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
8/22/2005
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
406
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
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 14 <br /> <br />when the City put the police officer positions out to referendum it was because it would have 1 <br />been a significant tax increase that would have been born financially by the residents of this City 2 <br />in a significant one-year tax increase that would continue on. She further clarified that it wasn’t 3 <br />that they were voting on two police officers it was a voting on paying the two police officers, 4 <br />which is a big difference. She referenced the trading of public land and asked if the Council 5 <br />recalled the land swap for Walgreen’s and asked if the City did a referendum because the City 6 <br />took public property and gave it to a private business and traded over. She clarified that the City 7 <br />owns property and is expected to manage property the City does not go to referendum to manage 8 <br />property, not even to a sale. She acknowledged that this huge and is probably the largest issue 9 <br />the Council will face, whether it rises to the issue of a referendum is for the people to decide. 10 <br />She stated that she is very happy to see so many people involved and this active in a City issue. 11 <br />She noted that this is the most activity she has seen in years and is excited to see Mounds View 12 <br />residents so active. She stated that if it does go to a referendum, that is a separate issue to 13 <br />address at that time. She stated that she believes she is fully capable of making a decision based 14 <br />on property evaluations noting that she believes the City is probably getting the best deal the City 15 <br />could get. She is confident in this and stands by her decision. 16 <br /> 17 <br />Council Member Gunn stated that she spent most of her day sitting at the computer reading 18 <br />emails and reviewing her notes from the Town Hall meetings. She stated that she has also spent 19 <br />a lot of her spare time and lunch breaks discussing City politics with residents. She stated that 20 <br />based on her emails and the responses from residents at the Town Hall meeting she found that 21 <br />approximately 90-percent of the residents are in favor of this project. She stated that she has to 22 <br />listen to the people adding that she also feels that she has made the right decision for the City of 23 <br />Mounds View. 24 <br /> 25 <br />Council Member Stigney stated that he keeps hearing a comparison that should be better and 26 <br />worth more. He explained that the appraisal of the land is for land located in Mounds View, not 27 <br />Blaine, Lino Lakes or Roseville. He stated that his only concern is with the appraisals they 28 <br />received for land located in Mounds View adding that fair appraisals were given, the City has 29 <br />done a negotiation with Medtronic and he believes the City has come up with a good deal for the 30 <br />City of Mounds View. He asked what the golf course has done for the City and answered 31 <br />nothing, until 2014, maybe, if the City is lucky. He stated that he does not believe that the golf 32 <br />course would bring in big dollars noting that the City would receive $4.6 to $5 million that would 33 <br />come into the City immediately, yet no one mentions this. He stated that the City could utilize 34 <br />the money to help lower taxes and asked how the residents could just throw this out the window 35 <br />to go with a golf course that is losing money. He noted that it is also capped at $14.8 million 36 <br />adding that as the years go by the $14.8 million by today’s dollars would be a lot less every year 37 <br />because they are capped at that value. He stated that Medtronic is the one taking the beating for 38 <br />the cap adding that Medtronic is also providing $8.65 for the park fund and $1 million for 39 <br />MnDOT. He stated that it is mind-boggling to keep hearing the spin and asked why they would 40 <br />keep a golf course that is losing money over Medtronic. He stated that if anyone could show him 41 <br />how the golf course would actually make money he would be willing to sign the petition. 42 <br /> 43 <br />Council Member Flaherty noted that when this deal originally came to the table it was nowhere 44 <br />close to what it is today. He assured the residents that the Council has worked very hard on this 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.