Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> ! <br /> I <br /> i <br /> I <br />:1 <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />CouncilmRmb~rs Sorteberg and Van Wagner stated that it was their understanding <br />that the!iPO~icy reads that the developer is responsible and no one outside <br />the serviced area wi I be assessed; now we are discussion city participation; <br />if Staff know about this situation, why wasn't it brought to the attention <br />of Council? <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec ~stated it was his understanding also that only benefiting parties <br />will be assessed and if that policy cannot be adhered to, then Staff has <br />misled Council. Mayor Gamec pointed out that Council has been telling people <br />all along that the PUD project will pay for itself and no taxes will be levied <br />to pay for those utilities. <br /> <br />Mr. P~at~kka stated that his question regarding city participation did not <br /> residential areas, that he is referring to to the industrial area <br />along ~w~. i~10. What is City's policy going to be in areas where the area <br />assessed does not pay added cost of oversizing and extra depth. <br /> <br />Mayor ~ameciinquired if the sewer serviced area #2 (Norm Holm's PUD Project) <br />will be abl~ to take care of it's own public utilities charges. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka.~ stated that it is not known for sure until the feasibility report <br />is complete~ but it does look positive. <br /> <br /> GoodriCh stated that if that area cannot handle it's <br /> own <br /> sewer <br /> charges, <br />then C~ncil does not have to approve the project. <br /> <br />Mr. DonOvan inquired if the Airport can be assessed for trunk line and does <br />the aiFPort take up so much space that it would be better used for commercial/ <br />industri~al development. <br /> <br />Mr. GoOdrich replied that no property can be assessed unless it benefits. <br />The airporti or anybody, may be able to show no benefit. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich summarized the 'city participation' issue as 'who pays for the <br />oversiZing ~f the trunk in the interim period of being used to full capacity?' <br />Does the City want a policy that, under no circumstances in any area, will <br />the City subsidize oversizing? <br /> <br />Council~emb~r Van Wagner suggested that maybe tax increment could be used <br />for thelCitY's portion of oversizing. <br /> <br />Mr. Schnelle had noted that with GO backing, there is liability to the City. <br />If development does not occur when estimated that it will and there is not <br />enough funding, dollars will be added to the tax roles to meet those payments. <br /> <br />Mr. Berg stated that the monies.will come back to the City as the trunk line <br />is develope~ and used to full capacity; it may take some time. <br /> <br />Members theD began to review A. Economic Development, Section 2. Utilities <br />and Tr&nspO~tation~ Section 3.. City Policy Regarding Economic Growth.~' <br /> <br />Mr. Greenberg stated that incoming businesses want to get things done in a <br />limitediti~e frame; some planning on the part of the City must be done. <br />Businesses mot requiring sewer and water should be discouraged from locating <br />in a ~rO~osed sewer serviced area. <br /> <br />C/January 31, 1984 <br /> Workshop Meeting <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />