My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2005/09/26
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
Agenda Packets - 2005/09/26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:50:11 PM
Creation date
8/1/2018 12:29:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
9/26/2005
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
9/26/2005
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.
/
210
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 August 22, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 23 <br /> <br /> 1 <br />Mr. Inman stated this plan says when this obligation is exhausted there will be additional 2 <br />increments that will have to be returned. There is nothing in the plan that requires Phases 2 and 3 3 <br />and there would have to be another process. 4 <br /> 5 <br />Councilmember Thomas stated the limit on Phase 1 is the cap, irregardless of future Councils 6 <br />approving another TIF Districts anywhere else in the City. 7 <br /> 8 <br />Mr. McCarty stated it is in the contract that when Phases 2 and 3 are ready to go, business 9 <br />subsidies will be revisited. The contract sunsets at completion of Phase 1 and, at the same time, 10 <br />there is a proviso in the contract that references future business subsidies in Phases 2 and 3. He 11 <br />stated he understands what Councilmember Thomas is saying, that the Council can say “no” to 12 <br />that, but asked if they would say no since it is not the end to it but the beginning. 13 <br /> 14 <br />Stan Meyer, 2812 Sherwood, stated this is just the basic concept and not a legally binding 15 <br />document. Councilmember Thomas stated that is correct. 16 <br /> 17 <br />Mr. Meyer stated anything on the plan can be changed and this is just a “pipe dream.” He stated 18 <br />that it has gone back and forth that Medtronic could keep the golf course for themselves. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Councilmember Thomas stated the golf course is written out of the contract. 21 <br /> 22 <br />Mr. Meyer asked who disposes of the greens, noting they are valuable. City Attorney Riggs 23 <br />stated the City has control of the assets and has a year to deal with the assets from the signing of 24 <br />the contract. 25 <br /> 26 <br />Mr. Meyer stated he thinks the greens are very valuable. City Attorney Riggs stated if the value 27 <br />is over $50,000 the City would have to accept bids. 28 <br /> 29 <br />Ms. Haake asked City Attorney Riggs if the contract is such that there is absolutely no chance for 30 <br />a golf course. She noted the location of Phase 1 buildings and stated there is nothing to preclude 31 <br />Medtronic from moving the location of the buildings and parking, and coming back to the City to 32 <br />keep the golf course. She stated it is their property and there is no guarantee in the contract that 33 <br />they will even do Phases 2 and 3. She asked City Attorney Riggs if Medtronic could keep the 34 <br />golf course. 35 <br /> 36 <br />City Attorney Riggs stated the development property has been defined as depicted and it is 37 <br />defined as the development of Phase 1. Any changes for Phase 2 or 3 would have to come into 38 <br />play and a definitional change made to allow that. Right now it does not say “and a golf course,” 39 <br />it says an 820,000 square foot development with office with accessory uses. 40 <br /> 41 <br />Ms. Haake stated this is just a concept plan and they could still relocate Phase 1 and legally keep 42 <br />the golf course if they wanted. City Attorney Riggs answered no, that could not happen as the 43 <br />contract is currently written. He suggested that Medtronic be asked that question and noted a 44 <br />restrictive covenant could be included if that’s the concern. 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.