Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Turok replied that Councilmember Howell was right that he didn’t care because they are <br />delivering the mission that is the cohort. <br /> <br />Councilmember Heineman stated he looked at this from a business standpoint that not taking the <br />suggestion to go out for bids but going with a company because they are a member of the Chamber <br />didn’t make sense. He also stated he has been in different levels of business for a while and a lot <br />of time when projects are being done, a detailed report is given so he agreed with the statement <br />that tangible evidence of effectiveness should be given. He also agreed that it is beneficial to have <br />the manufacturing cohort but didn’t agree to continuing to invest in an organization that isn’t being <br />transparent. <br /> <br />Mayor Kuzma commented that he sees the value in this because 26 businesses are part of this and <br />two companies were awarded grants. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Riley, seconded by Councilmember Woestehoff, to Adopt Resolution <br />#22-045 Approving Anoka Area Chamber of Commerce Manufacturers Cohort 2021-2022. <br /> <br />Further discussion: <br />Councilmember Howell asked why Councilmember Riley is willing to pay $5,000 on something <br />they could get for free. Councilmember Musgrove stated it has been said that 26 Ramsey <br />businesses participate but she asked if that number reflects those that have participated over the <br />years, noting the work plan doesn’t give that information for the current year or last year. She was <br />surprised that the Councilmembers are willing to pay tax payer dollars to fund this. Mayor Kuzma <br />replied it is known that two companies got grants last year. Councilmember Musgrove replied <br />they could have gotten those grants without any money. Councilmember Howell requested a roll <br />call vote. Councilmember Specht commented that he could see the concerns and appreciated the <br />questions. He stated the one thing that stands out is the question about whether the EDA didn’t <br />have the information, and asked if there would be interest in having the EDA look at it again. <br />Councilmember Howell replied she would support that. Councilmember Heineman referenced the <br />comments about tangible numbers and stated if numbers are used without any data behind them <br />then the answer is skewed. When hard numbers, tangible facts, and data driven reports are <br />requested and the answer is lacking, that is not enough for the Council to decide. Councilmember <br />Woestehoff asked if a friendly amendment could be added to say contingent upon reapproval of <br />the EDA with the additional information. Councilmember Riley replied the information that is <br />being said the EDA didn’t have, is where the other 18 communities went to. He didn’t feel that <br />was important or that having more information would change their opinion. <br /> <br />A roll vote was performed: <br /> <br />Councilmember Heineman nay <br />Councilmember Woestehoff aye <br />Councilmember Specht nay <br />Councilmember Musgrove nay <br />Councilmember Howell nay <br />Councilmember Riley aye <br />Mayor Kuzma aye <br />City Council / February 22, 2022 <br />Page 9 of 34 <br /> <br />