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 19 <br /> <br />because he kept the Council on the straight and narrow in many instances, however, as a 1 <br />businessperson he needs more education. 2 <br /> 3 <br />Council Member Stigney asked for a call to order, he does not need an education from Duane 4 <br />McCarty on how to run a business. 5 <br /> 6 <br />Mr. McCarty stated that if he were running a business his mind would not be locked in on the 7 <br />simple day to day income and outgo, he would include in the business rolling stock, inventory 8 <br />and real estate assets. He agreed that it would be 2017 before everything that catches up adding 9 <br />that if they were to calculate the value of the property and include that calculation into the total 10 <br />value of the operations of the property it would be worth over $16 million within the next twenty 11 <br />years if you were to add a simple 3-percent growth. He stated that they know very well it would 12 <br />be much more than that. He apologized to the Mayor stating that he did not mean to upset the 13 <br />Council or hurt Council Member Stigney’s feelings. He explained that the Council has to get 14 <br />beyond simple sales, income and costs adding that they need to include all assets. He stated that 15 <br />the asset they are giving up for the Medtronic deal is a whale of an asset in terms of future value 16 <br />of that property. He stated that to think that that property was appraised at $10 million and the 17 <br />City is selling it for $8.6 based on one or two appraisals and three appraisals are the norm. He 18 <br />stated that this is why people are concerned. He stated that he believes the Council is trying to do 19 <br />their best but somehow they have found themselves in a corner and he fears for the way this is 20 <br />going to turn out. 21 <br /> 22 <br />Council Member Stigney referenced the future use of the golf course noting that the City has an 23 <br />18-month timeframe to sell or develop noting that after 18-months it is all gone. He stated that 24 <br />maybe by 2017 they might have the wear withal to go back to the Legislature and get it all 25 <br />changed again, noting that he does not believe that would happen. 26 <br /> 27 <br />Mayor Marty clarified that the 18-months is on the MnDOT property and the driving range is 13-28 <br />acres adding that the City does have property in the area that is not controlled under the MnDOT 29 <br />covenants. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Council Member Stigney clarified that Mr. McCarty believes that the City should hang on to the 32 <br />golf course and piece meal it out in the long-term and he does not agree with that. 33 <br /> 34 <br />Council Member Thomas asked the Council to get back to the agenda item addressing the 35 <br />Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment. 36 <br /> 37 <br />Ms. Haake stated that she did calculate out the value of the property in terms of $35,000 an acre, 38 <br />over 25-years at 5-percent increase, it would be worth $57,568 million. 39 <br /> 40 <br />Mayor Marty stated that it was pointed out that the Planning Commission made a unanimous 41 <br />decision on February 2, 2005 and since February more information has come in and the Council 42 <br />did not have much information until approximately three weeks ago. He stated that he was 43 <br />approached by several of the Planning Commissioners expressing their concerns on this issue. 44 <br />He stated that they explained that what they reviewed in February is not what they envisioned at 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.