My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-24-2005
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Economic Development Authority
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
01-24-2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2025 9:14:39 AM
Creation date
8/6/2018 12:29:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
Economic Development Authority
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
1/24/2005
Commission Doc Number (Ord & Res)
0
Supplemental fields
Date
1/24/2005
EDA Document Type
Council Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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 EDA January 14, 2005 <br />Special Meeting Page 2 <br /> <br />aspect of the signs. 46 <br />. 47 <br />Economic Development Director Backman stated that they would also be evaluating the leases. 48 <br /> 49 <br />Commissioner Flaherty asked whether they would also value what Clear Channel would require 50 <br />of the City to get out of the lease. 51 <br /> 52 <br />Economic Development Director Backman stated that they would be looking at a variety of 53 <br />aspects, and that is why they were interacting with Kennedy and Graven as well. 54 <br /> 55 <br />President Marty asked whether the signs were being looked at individually since there was 56 <br />speculation that possibly all the signs would not have to go. 57 <br /> 58 <br />Economic Development Director Backman stated that he had asked for proposals on one, two, 59 <br />and all six billboards. 60 <br /> 61 <br />President Marty asked if the appraisal would look at each sign’s purported value and the cost of 62 <br />the signs themselves. 63 <br /> 64 <br />Economic Development Director Backman stated that it would be both. 65 <br /> 66 <br />Commissioner Stigney asked whether Clear Channel had come out with any figures or whether 67 <br />they were going to. 68 <br /> 69 <br />Economic Development Director Backman stated that he would have to defer to City Attorney 70 <br />Riggs on that issue. 71 <br /> 72 <br />City Attorney Riggs stated that the discussions hadn’t gone that far. He stated that they had 73 <br />information from Clear Channel showing what they had spent on the signs, what they believe the 74 <br />income will be, and what they believe the City will received from the signs, so they had a pretty 75 <br />good baseline. He stated that he assumed that they would do something like that. 76 <br /> 77 <br />Commissioner Stigney asked what the next step would be. 78 <br /> 79 <br />City Attorney Riggs stated it would be to figure out what signs could remain or be relocated so 80 <br />that Clear Channel is still happy, and so the City and the EDA can move forward with the 81 <br />project. 82 <br /> 83 <br />Commissioner Stigney asked whether all the bases were being covered by this appraisal or 84 <br />whether something else would need to be done in the future. 85 <br /> 86 <br />City Attorney Riggs stated that conceivably something could come up, but that this would 87
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.