Laserfiche WebLink
of the improvenents, the outo(~me might have been different. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fults stated that the only way the Industrial area will develop is <br />if all the property owners are happy; they make the best salesmen. <br />Commissioner Fults also stated that he thought the concerns of property owners <br />were addressed with one of the final financing options presented that allowed <br />for no charge until hook-up and the choice to never hook-up to the services. <br /> <br />Commissioner Vevea stated that in the event of on-site system failure, property <br />owners would be forced to connect to public services rather than do repairs to <br />their existing systems. There is also no guarantee that future Councils won't <br />require connection to the services. <br /> <br />Mr. Steve Gorecki was present and stated that property owners are also <br />concerned with the absorption rate of this industrial property, especially when <br />taking into consideration it is located adjacent to 300 acres of industrial <br />property Anoka is attempting to develop. Some of the property owners feel <br />that the City subsidizing a project with partial lateral service is <br />inequitable. <br /> <br />C~ssioner Wagner stated that he feels without sewer and water, Ramsey's <br />industrial property will be very unattractive oompared to Anoka's. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kurak noted that because of City participation in the cost of <br />improvements, land costs in Ramsey's industrial area will be more attractive <br />than in Anoka's. C~ssioner Kurak then inquired what the procedure would be <br />if a property not having lateral service available experiences on-site system <br />failure. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that the property owners would have to petition for <br />extension of laterals; council would conduct a public hearing and if the <br />project is disapproved, the property owner would have to go to a mound system. <br />Using Chapter 444, if the City thought it prudent to extend laterals and if the <br />funds were available, that utility could be extended to the property and the <br />property c~ner would be charged a connection fee. <br /> <br />Motion by Comm~issioner Hardin and seconded by Cc~missioner Ippel to indicate to <br />City Council that there continues to be an interest on the part of the Economic <br />Develof~ent C0~ssion to proceed with a sewer and water improvement project <br />and, in light of the petition received, the Economic Development Commission <br />requests time to reform a new project or redraft the scope of the existing <br />project rather than cease the project entirely. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: C~ssioner Ippel suggested that before the project is <br />ceased, it might be worthwhile to conduct an informational meeting with the <br />property owners in order to resurrect the project with new language and/or <br />financing options rather than have to compile an entirely new project. <br />Commissioner Kurak stated that even more communication with the affected <br />property owners is necessary. Mr. Nartley replied that the City does not have <br />that opportunity; once a petition is submitted to Council, action on the <br />project is terminated for one year; neither Council nor the petitioners can <br />change that; a physical change to the Council nor the petitioners can change <br />that; a physical change to the project is required in order to make it a new <br />EDC/January 5, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />