11-24-1997 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 2 November 24, 1997 Mounds View City Council'- 1 None. 2 3 F. CONSENTAGENDA: 4 5 Council member Stigney requested that Item (3.) be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. 6 7 MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Koopmeiners to approve the Consent Agenda with the removal of Item 3. 8 9 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 10 11 Mr. Stigney asked for a clarification on Item 3. Mr. lopke, Community Development Director explained that 12 the grant agreement referred to in Item 3 is for a grant of $5,070. The city has received an estimate for the 13 updating of the Comprehensive Plan in the amount of $93,200, however, he expects that this will be reduced 14 significantly. 15 16 MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Koopmeiners to approve Item F(3) of the Consent Agenda. 17 18 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 19 20 G. RESIDENTS REQUESTSAND COMMENTS FROM THE FI OOR• 21 22 Mayor McCarty explained that this is the time for residents to address the council with concerns on items that 23 are not on the Agenda. 24 25 There were no questions or comments from the floor. 26 27 H. COUNCIL BUSINESS: 28 29 Mayor McCarty asked that Item H(2) be considered prior to H(1). 30 31 2. Consideration of Resolution No. 5185, Authorizing the Mayor and the Clerk -Administrator to 32 execute a Cooperative Agreement, a Joint Power Agreement and a Development Agreement with the 33 Minneapolis Public Housing Authority and MSP Real Estate regarding the Silver Lake Commons 34 Project. 35 36 Mayor McCarty asked that the City Attorney respond to his memo regarding the MSP Project and the initial 37 agreements and the operational agreement for this project. He stated his concern in that there was no 38 clarification as to how long the agreement would go. Attorney Long explained that the initial agreement term 39 would be 40 years and would be tied back to the Cooperative Agreement. The forty year period is the period 40 in which HUD would operate this through the MPHA. 41 42 Mayor McCarty noted that throughout the process, the developer has assured the city that the implementation 43 agreements were only a formality. He is unable to locate an assurance clause for long term city costs relevant 44 to the agreement. He does not feel the "formality" should cost the city anything 45 and felt there must be a clause in the` agreement that would insure that the city would get full reimbursement for 46 all activities in the future. Article #3 on Management limits the agreed on -site management requirement for • 47 five years. He would like to see this amended to insure that the on -site management operation would go on for 48 the life of the agreement. Item #4 in Article #3 should be amended to assure that the maintenance funds