My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Economic Development Authority - 01/13/2022
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Economic Development Authority
>
2022
>
Agenda - Economic Development Authority - 01/13/2022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2025 12:44:35 PM
Creation date
1/6/2022 12:29:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Economic Development Authority
Document Date
01/13/2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
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).
View images
View plain text
Motion by Member Johnson, seconded by Member Olson, to recommend to City Council to <br />approve Second Amendment to Purchase Agreement and Right of Re -Entry Agreement for Outlot <br />B, COR Stone Brook Academy as presented; subject to City Attorney review. <br />A roll call vote was performed: <br />Member Howell aye <br />Member Riley aye <br />Chairperson Cords aye <br />Member Steffen aye <br />Member Johnson aye <br />Member Olson aye <br />Motion carried. <br />4.02: Consider Options Regarding Purchase Agreement for Lot 4, Block 1, Riverside West; <br />Case of Windows and Doors USA LLC (Portions of meeting could be closed to the <br />public) <br />Economic Development Manager Sullivan presented the staff report. <br />Chairperson Cords asked if this would be reasonable time to expect response from the applicant. <br />Economic Development Manager Sullivan commented that typically with purchase agreements, <br />there would be earnest money provided to City after the purchase agreement is approved by City <br />Council and work would begin on the site plan. He stated that the applicant did previously mention <br />the uncertainty of the market. He noted that he has never had an applicant go this silent before <br />and he did not see any recent progress or desire to make progress. He stated that the applicant has <br />expressed concern with the right of re-entry agreement, but it was explained that the City uses that <br />as common practice. He stated that it is a good project he would like to see happen but is not <br />receiving indications that it will come to fruition. <br />Member Olson asked if the right of re-entry agreement is common for cities to use. <br />Economic Development Manager Sullivan commented that some cities use the clause while others <br />do not. He stated that Ramsey is unique in the amount of land it owns, whereas some cities do not <br />own much land for development. He stated that the clause is good to have because the desire is <br />for the land to be developed rather than a situation where a person purchases the property to sit on <br />it for a length of time. He stated that the right of re-entry agreement has been enacted and used in <br />the past. He stated that under that clause the City has the right to take the property back but does <br />not have to take the property back. He noted that a financial penalty could also be imposed if <br />development does not happen by certain dates. <br />Member Riley stated that it is important to have the right of re-entry as that protects the interest of <br />the City and the residents, as the intent is to have the land developed rather than remain vacant for <br />decades. He suggested that staff keep moving with the applicant but advise him that the land is <br />Economic Development Authority/ December 9, 2021 <br />Page 3 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.