09-13-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View EDA September 13, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 5 President Linke stated that he thought they were being premature here, having gone down this road once before. He stated he would vote for it, but with reservation. He stated there were three other options for the golf course that they hadn’t heard anything about for awhile. Commissioner Gunn stated that sometimes you have to spend money to make money, and she believes that this is one of those instances. Commissioner Marty agreed, stating that this type of thing doesn’t come along every day. He stated that if they didn’t get this deal, this would have a 20-year life or time line. Commissioner Stigney stated he agreed with all of those statements. He stated this could potentially create up to a thousand jobs, and he couldn’t see a higher potential economic place to spend these funds. Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. C. Discussion of the City Attorney’s Recommendation regarding the Title Work completed by Old Republic pertaining to the Bridges Golf Course. Brian Shirley indicated he was sitting in for Mr. Riggs as City Attorney, and Nancy England, a paralegal, was present as well from Kennedy and Graven. President Linke stated several questions had been raised as to at least two parcels of land, and that a lot of it hinged on getting it back or getting it removed from the reverter clause. He stated that this doesn’t deal with the Sysco property and that the City was continuing to use that. He stated they are primarily dealing with the 50 acres from MnDOT. He stated he had a hard time believing this is a public purpose because usually public purpose has to do with government operations. Economic Development Director Backman stated that he has had some discussions with the Governor’s office, and that he had had two questions of them. One of them was regarding the former MnDOT parcel consisting of 55 acres, which is now controlled by the City. He asked them if we redevelop this for a corporate office campus, would they view that as a public purpose. He stated he had been told that they would likely view that as a public purpose. He stated he asked them if the Administration is open to removing the reverter clause, would the best course be to do it legislatively or administratively. He stated the response to that question was that they did not view this as a major problem, and they would have their attorneys pick apart the legal opinion from Kennedy and Graven and determine which course would be better. President Linke stated he had never heard of anything being removed administratively. Mr. Shirley stated that in the letter, in order to be air tight, it would have to be done legislatively. Comment [JE3]: Instead, I’d indicate “Kennedy & Graven” Comment [JE4]: Sysco