06-27-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 9 President Marty called the meeting back to order at 7:05 p.m. Mr. McCarty referenced the park dedication fee, he stated that he understands that the agreement states that the park dedication fee would be calculated on the basis of $8.6 million paid by Medtronic and that they would pay the balance of $1 million to the State Highway Fund in favor of the city. He stated that the bill that was passed under Minnesota Statutes that authorized this special legislation is that the Commissioner of Transportation shall convey to the City of Mounds View all right and title and the City shall pay the Commissioner $1 million. He expressed concerns stating that they are being offered $8.6 and the City is paying an additional $1 million to clear the land and get clear title, which is a cost to the City of $9.6 and respectfully submitted that the park dedication fee should be $965,000 and would reflect the total cost of the land to the city and the transfer over, if this project is accepted as presented. Mr. McCarty noted that there was information presented from staff outlining several options noting that he would like to address the last option on the $7.2 million the City would end up with in the end. He referenced the ‘as is’ investment option stating that this was not mentioned and noted that if they were to keep the property ‘as is’ for the same term, projecting it on a 3- percent per annum gain, based on its current value, the property would be worth $16.5 million. He stated that the Finance department has projected an ending cash balance of $9.6 million for a total of $26 million. He stated that this is a great deal more than the $17 million cited in the document. Mr. McCarty referenced the issue of selling the property noting Section 2.02 of the City Charter, Boards and Commission, states that there would be no separate boards of administration powers in the City of Mounds View and the Council would act as such in all cases accepting that they may appoint advisory commissions to perform quasi-judicial functions, which means advisory in total. He stated bottom line the EDA cannot sell this property. He stated that the Council does not have to transfer it under ordinance noting that if they wish to note to the EDA that they want the EDA to negotiate this project they can do that by simple motion. He stated that under Section 12.05, Sales of Real Property, it is stated very clearly that no real property of the city would be disposed of except by ordinance. He stated that it also states that the proceeds of any sale of such property would be used to retire any outstanding debts of the city in the purchase, construction or improvement of this or other property used for the same public purpose. He stated that he would like to respectfully submit that the golf course is a recreation activity of the city and if there are any outstanding debts on any other recreational facilities the residuals or profits on the property must first go to retire these debts. Mr. McCarty stated that the EDA resolution recommending that Council sell The Bridges Golf Course to Medtronic prior to finalization of the Comprehensive Plan amendments may be a bit premature. He suggested perusing Minnesota Statute 462, the Comprehensive Planning Act, stating that they would find that the comprehensive plans and their companion documents are one and the same, cohesive and inseparable. He stated that to go forward with the sale of a