My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 2005/07/11
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
Minutes - 2005/07/11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2025 4:18:26 PM
Creation date
3/5/2025 4:18:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
7/11/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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 City Council July 11, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 19 <br />because he kept the Council on the straight and narrow in many instances, however, as a <br />• businessperson he needs more education. <br />Council Member Stigney asked for a call to order, he does not need an education from Duane <br />McCarty on how to run a business. <br />Mr. McCarty stated that if he were running a business his mind would not be locked in on the <br />simple day to day income and outgo, he would include in the business rolling stock, inventory <br />and real estate assets. He agreed that it would be 2017 before everything that catches up adding <br />that if they were to calculate the value of the property and include that calculation into the total <br />value of the operations of the property it would be worth over $16 million within the next twenty <br />years if you were to add a simple 3-percent growth. He stated that they know very well it would <br />be much more than that. He apologized to the Mayor stating that he did not mean to upset the <br />Council or hurt Council Member Stigney's feelings. He explained that the Council has to get <br />beyond simple sales, income and costs adding that they need to include all assets. He stated that <br />the asset they are giving up for the Medtronic deal is a whale of an asset in terms of future value <br />of that property. He stated that to think that that property was appraised at $10 million and the <br />City is selling it for $8.6 based on one or two appraisals and three appraisals are the norm. He <br />stated that this is why people are concerned. He stated that he believes the Council is trying to do <br />their best but somehow they have found themselves in a corner and he fears for the way this is <br />going to turn out. <br />Council Member Stigney referenced the future use of the golf course noting that the City has an <br />18-month timeframe to sell or develop noting that after 18-months it is all gone. He stated that <br />maybe by 2017 they might have the wear withal to go back to the Legislature and get it all <br />changed again, noting that he does not believe that would happen. <br />Mayor Marty clarified that the 18-months is on the MnDOT property and the driving range is 13- <br />acres adding that the City does have property in the area that is not controlled under the MnDOT <br />covenants. <br />Council Member Stigney clarified that Mr. McCarty believes that the City should hang on to the <br />golf course and piece meal it out in the long-term and he does not agree with that. <br />Council Member Thomas asked the Council to get back to the agenda item addressing the <br />Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment. <br />Ms. Haake stated that she did calculate out the value of the property in terms of $35,000 an acre, <br />over 25-years at 5-percent increase, it would be worth $57,568 million. <br />Mayor Marty stated that it was pointed out that the Planning Commission made a unanimous <br />decision on February 2, 2005 and since February more information has come in and the Council <br />did not have much information until approximately three weeks ago. He stated that he was <br />approached by several of the Planning Commissioners expressing their concerns on this issue. <br />• He stated that they explained that what they reviewed in February is not what they envisioned at <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.