My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-24-2005
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Economic Development Authority
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
10-24-2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2025 9:16:26 AM
Creation date
8/6/2018 1:24:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
Economic Development Authority
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
10/24/2005
Commission Doc Number (Ord & Res)
0
Supplemental fields
Date
10/24/2005
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.
/
25
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 August 22, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 17 <br /> <br />Mr. Inman noted the parcel does not appear in the second resolution but does appear in the Plan 667 <br />and all documents the EDA has received. He stated he would like the action to include the parcel 668 <br />number to avoid confusion. 669 <br /> 670 <br />City Attorney Rigg agreed that is the most correct route since it is referenced in the Plan. He 671 <br />stated what is before the EDA does not have that parcel pulled out at this time and the EDA 672 <br />should have a record. 673 <br /> 674 <br />Economic Development Coordinator Bachman suggested Section 1 of the resolution be revised 675 <br />to state: “…Minnesota which is underutilized and that the adoption of the proposed Plans, as 676 <br />amended, will help provide employment opportunities…” 677 <br /> 678 <br />Commissioner Thomas stated there are only the five parcels and suggested including those PIN 679 <br />numbers rather than excluding the one that is being omitted. 680 <br /> 681 <br />Vice-President Stigney stated Staff can determine how to best reflect that amendment. 682 <br /> 683 <br />SECOND: /Thomas. 684 <br /> 685 <br />Vote on amendment motion: 686 <br /> 687 <br /> Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 688 <br /> 689 <br />Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated he has reviewed the draft contract and believes 690 <br />this proposal is being piecemealed, not by design, but in actual fact. He stated there are several 691 <br />other issues in the overall contract that the EDA will need to deal with. He stated the original 692 <br />contract had an exclusion for existing jobs that has been stricken from the current contract. He 693 <br />assumed that it is intended that Medtronic will move positions from other facilities to the 694 <br />Mounds View location and wondered if that qualifies as the jobs goal as required under the 695 <br />Economic Development Act. Other issues of concern relate to indemnification for liability; 696 <br />however, studies have found a certain amount of hazardous conditions, and that the contract 697 <br />requires the City to indemnify all comers in the first phase. Mr. McCarty stated he has many 698 <br />other issues and is in fear that the EDA is “digging a hole” and when the end comes the City will 699 <br />not like the results but be hard pressed to retract actions. He stated in his mind, the City should 700 <br />understand every contingency from beginning to end before getting this far. That is what the 701 <br />previous speaker was alluding to and is his concern as well. 702 <br /> 703 <br />Commissioner Flaherty read the Purchase Agreement, Section 5.2, Jobs and Wages, which 704 <br />indicates that within two years after the date of issuance of the certificate of completion, the 705 <br />compliance date, that developer shall cause to be created at least 1,500 new full-time equivalent 706 <br />jobs on the development property. 707 <br /> 708
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.