Laserfiche WebLink
regarding the election of the Board on January 13, 1988. Several Board <br />members discussed concerns that the community perceives there to be <br />dissension in the Company; the Board needs to schedule a special <br />shareholders' meeting in response to the letter. The Board discussed the <br />need for the special meeting to be constructive; not just a complaint <br />session. The Board discussed improving communication with the shareholders <br />- perhaps holding quarterly meetings or sending out a quarterly newsletter <br />outlining the Board's activities. <br /> <br />Motion by Mr. Greenberg and seconded by Mr. Zimmer to send out a letter in <br />response to the letter setting a date for the special shareholders' meeting <br />and asking for specific issues to be discussed at the special meeting. <br /> <br />Further discussion: Mr. Ippel commented that if a special meeting is <br />scheduled, he would prefer to discuss more than just the election at the <br />annual shareholders' meeting. Mr. Greenberg stated that he thinks that <br />only the election should be discussed at the special meeting. The Board <br />determined that a special shareholders' meeting be scheduled for Wednesday, <br />April 20, 1988 at 4:30 p.m. at the lower level of the Ramsey Municipal <br />Center and that an agenda for the meeting be sent out prior to the meeting. <br /> <br />Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Case #2: Review MnTED Economic Development Grant Proqram. <br /> <br />A representative of MnTED was not able to attend the Board meeting to <br />discuss the Economic Develof~ent Grant Program. The Board tabled this case <br />to the April meeting. <br /> <br />Case ~3: Update on Revision of Company By_-L~ws. <br /> <br />Mr. Ippel had stated that he has met with Bill Goodrich, City Attorney, to <br />review the Company By-Laws. Revised By-Laws will be available for the <br />Board's review at its April 6 meeting. <br /> <br />Case #5: Discussion Regarding Co_mpanyGoals. <br /> <br />The Board reviewed Company goals discussed at the February 18 Board <br />meeting. It was noted that many of these goals coincided with <br />recommendations contained in the Highway 10 Corridor Study. <br /> <br />_Case #4: Discussion Regardinq Highway 10 Corridor Study. <br /> <br />The Board noted that the Company should endorse the Highway 10 project and <br />should identify those portions of the plan that the Company can be <br />responsible for. The Board requested that Mr. Ippel, Mr. Greenberg, Mr. <br />Fults, Mr. Kummala and Mr. Raudio determine 10 items in the Highway 10 <br />Study that the Companyshouldbe responsible for and forward that in the <br />form of a recommendation to the City Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Kummala commented that he is concerned that the Company is not acting <br />on any project and is only making recommendations; he feels that the <br />Company should be doing development and bringing business in to Ramsey. <br />Economic Develol~nent Company/~rch 2, 1988 <br /> <br />Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />