Laserfiche WebLink
Case #1: Continued Discussion Of Tax Increment Financing Policy: <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley requested Council direction regarding the tax increment <br />financing policy that was drafted. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Pearson and seconded by Councilmember $orteberg <br />directing staff to prepare a resolution adopting the proposed Tax Increment <br />Financing Policy with the language in the policy being used as the text of <br />the resolution; that resolution should be presented to Council at it's next <br />meeting for adoption. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Councilmember DeLuca inquired if language should be <br />included indicating Council's desire to give priority to proposals that <br />qualify for tax exempt bonds. Mr. Hartley stated that Council would be <br />addressing that question on project by project basis. Mr. Batty stated <br />that generally, if there is bad purpose, there is a security agreement; <br />therefore it is a taxable issue because it failed both tests. Mr. Batty <br />stated that any one development may generate both taxable and tax exempt <br />issues; the only way to avoid taxable bond issues is if the city's amount <br />of participation is small enough not to require the selling of bonds; <br />otherwise, they should all be thought of as taxable issues. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Acting Mayor Cox, Councilmembers Sorteberg, <br />DeLuca and Pearson. Voting No: None. Absent: Mayor Reimann. <br /> <br />Case #2,A; <br /> <br />Discussion Regardin~ The Keeping Of A Black Bear; Case Of <br /> Mr, Carl Anderson: <br /> <br />Mr. Anderson indicated concerns he and his neighbors have for a bear <br />that is being housed in the vicinity of 153rd and Sunfish lake Blvd. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that the only statutory requirement he is aware of is <br />that the owner has to be qualified to keep such an animal; there are no <br />city ordinances on the books addressing the keeping of wild animals; staff <br />has learned that the bear is declawed and defanged. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated there is a city ordinance that says it is a public <br />nuisance to maintain or permit a condition that unreasonably annoys or <br />endangers the comfort and repose of numbers of people. <br /> <br />Mr. Anderson also inquired if the owner of the bear ever applied for a <br />building permit for the structure the bear is housed in; how does the <br />Humane Society feel about defanging and declawing; what is the risk to <br />community safety if the bear ever gets loose; bears can be quite <br />odoriferous and how is the owner taking care of the bodily functions of the <br />bear? Mr. Anderson stated that with respect to the owner being qualified, <br />he has a history of not properly maintaining dogs and cattle on his <br />property. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that any citizen can bring charges against the owner of <br />the bear and most likely the judge and jury would determine if it is an <br />'unreasonable nuisance'; the city could require the owner of the bear to go <br /> City Council/August 11, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 6 of 16 <br /> <br /> <br />