Laserfiche WebLink
tools available. <br /> <br />~s. Norris stated that one c~ntingen~ plan is to provide temporary Bewer <br />service to Mate Pur~ and Die by way of a lift station and lateral pipe along <br />Sunfish Blvd., whtct~ would eventually be developed Into a full system and the <br />lift station being moved and used elsewhere. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley noted that lift stations are very c~nlnon and reliable, and with <br />various design cDnsiderations, they will acc~te wet industry. <br /> <br />Gaflmisstoner PeLu~a inquired if there would be sufficient time tn that 'wtnc~' <br />bet~een Federal and State action to allow l~ey to 9o for tax increment <br />financing and remain in c~mpltance with City Charter requirements. <br /> <br />Hr. ~artley replied that the c~arter provision refers to improvements that are <br />specially assessed ar~ the sewer project does not necessarily have to be <br />specially assessed. It might be more appropriate to look at a service <br />availability c~arge, user charge or oonnection c~arge as a tool for c~llecting <br />r~enues. <br /> <br />Motion by CcE~iastoner Wagner and seoonded by CcIm~isaioner rults to rec~xmnend <br />that City Council proceed with a feasibility st~ for sewer, water and storm <br />se~er with an option for a scaled c~ version of sewer only in the City's <br />Industrial area. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: C~mmissioner ltardin stated that he would like to see a <br />c~x~parison of c~st figures and areas to be served between the full public <br />improvement system versus the sealed down version. [ir. Hartley stated that the <br />information will be c~nvsyed to EDC. <br /> <br />Hotion carried. Voting Yes: Cl~airman Greenberg, Cc~missioners Hardin, Wagner, <br />PeLuea, Vevea and Fults. Voting No: None. Absent: Con~issioners Muller and <br />Kurak. <br /> <br />Chairman Greenberg inguired as to the effect of this new legislation upon <br />reeent discussions of est~_hlishing the airport area as a tax increment <br />district. <br /> <br />Hr. Hartley replied that he has not heard that the ese~hlisl~ent of tax <br />increment districts is in jeopardy; tax increment districts are State law and <br />the elimination of tax exempt bomts is a Federal action; note that if no action <br />oc~-'urs within t~o years of district esemhlishn~.nt, the area is disbanded and <br />any accrued funds are reverted back to the normal taxin9 authorities. <br /> <br />Ms. Norris stated that she has heard that tax increment districts would be <br />limited to redevelopment purposes Only. <br /> <br />Hr. Jack Ippel stated that the Airport Ca, mission's reoc~tion to pursue <br />establishing the Industrial area (including airport and s~me residential) as a <br />tax increment district is probably not worth proceeding with in view of recent <br />legislation regarding tax increment financing. <br /> <br />February 12, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 3 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />