08/27/96 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Case #8: Authorize Purchase of Phone System for Police Department Facility and City Hall Finance Officer Hart explained that Mr. Bob Reynolds from Central Tele-Systems is present regarding the phone system. She stated that, at first, she thought we could connect with the old system, but that is not the case. Because of the age of our current system and the fact that it is "technologically" obsolete, this was not possible. The current system is maximized to its fullest and because of the need to have systems that communicate, we researched the possibility of replacing the entire system in conjunction with placing a system in the Police facility. The City received four quotes including the vendor that supplied and currently maintains our existing system at City Hall. She explained the different bids and what they did and did not include. Based on quotes and demonstrations of the system, staff is recommending we go forward with voice mail capabilities. She proposed adding two additional incoming call lines. Motion by Councilmember Beyer and seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman to recommend Council adopt the resolution authorizing a budget amendment for the purchase of the phone system from Central Tele-Systems. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmembers Beyer, Zimmerman, Beahen and Peterson. Voting No: None. Case #6: Consider Settlement with Anoka Ramsey Sport Center Finance Officer Hart stated that Mr. John Noard of Anoka Ramsey Sport Center has contended for the last several years that his property is improperly being charged for water and sewer trunk related charges in relation to City Project #87-19. He feels that these charges should have been covered under site improvements in the tax increment Project #88-15 that assisted him during the first expansion of his facilities. Staff is satisfied that the City contribution toward site improvements covered only the cost of installing the storm sewer from catch basin to street. There was no indication in our correspondence files, contract documents and technical specifications, or plans that there was ever an intent that the tax increment district would pay for the installation for water and sanitary sewer. In 1994, the City again provided tax increment assistance to Mr. Noard for an expansion of his facility. During these negotiations, and included in the Development Permit with Mr. Noard, the issue was pro-actively dealt with. It is staff's opinion that Mr. Noard was appropriately charged water and sewer trunk and lateral benefit charges in conjunction with the initial expansion of the facility. In addition, the City has also provided a unique benefit to Mr. Noard through the most recent expansion and facility agreement, in that he may receive up to $19,574.83 in property tax rebates, something other developers and property owners have not been afforded. She continued that, further, currently there is no excess increment available from Project #88-15. Any monetary settlement with Mr. Noard at this time would have to come from other funds. Based on the most recent development permit, Mr. Noard appears to be eligible to receive $3,073.99 in taxable rebate for 1996. This leaves a remainder of up to $16,500.91 that is potentially recoverable if taxes rise on commercial property generally or if taxes rise on this property specifically. There still remains the possibility that taxes could go down generally which would leave less room for Mr. Noard to recover these dollars. Ms. Hart reported that staff proposed to Mr. Noard's attorney that a resolution to the situation could be an early pay-off, but because of the uncertainty of future tax levels, we suggested that if an early pay-off is agreed to, it be made at a considerable discount. Mr. Noard's attorney responded that Mr. Noard would settle for $15,000 cash. She suggested a couple of options for the Committee: 1) reject the offer; or 2) counter the offer. Given the uncertainty of excess increments or property taxes ever being available, staff fees a 50% discount is more appropriate. Further, that any settlement not be in cash but instead be noted as a credit against future City services. Finance Committee/August 27, 1996 Page 4 of 6