Laserfiche WebLink
suggested that the City, through TIF, could recapture the $150,000. He reported that Mr. <br />Norman had asked him to analyze whether or not this would be feasible to do. The Anoka <br />County Assessor has said the project will have an approximate value of $1,553,300 with land <br />and building. The City's current tax capacity on the vacant land is $2,786 and the new capacity <br />with improvements would be $52,791. The tax rate against the difference between the two <br />projects will guarantee $55,254 in tax increment before any deductions. Even though generating <br />$55,000 of increment does not mean you could pay off the note because there are other <br />deductions. This is Tax Increment District No. 2 area. You can decide if you want the project to <br />contribute to fiscal disparities and he recommended that it does. The 9% discount rate would <br />support a note of $195,000. This project would be feasible in a financing aspect. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen asked what would be developed. <br /> <br />Mr. Norman responded it would be an office, and shop and a transfer station. He added that he <br />would suggest if TIF is provided, that we ask them to berm on the east parking lot (Azurite) as <br />well as berm on McKinley Street. <br /> <br />Councihnember Hendriksen felt that the question is whether or not we want them here. He <br />thought he would like more detail on the transfer station. He also wanted to know more about <br />the jobs they would provide, the number of trucks this would bring into the City, and the <br />timeframe of morning traffic. He also suggested finding out from Coon Rapids why they didn't <br />want them in their city. He wondered if we have something to be able to restrict them. If they <br />want to come to the City of Ramsey even without the $150,000 in TIF, then we have saved <br />$150,000. <br /> <br />Mr. Mulrooney stated rather than having it payable to the landowner, have it payable back to the <br />developer. <br /> <br />#4: Maken & Sauter Property Redevelopment Analysis <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman presented pictures of buildings on the Maken and Sauter properties <br />and suggested that the City purchases these two properties. With regard to the Sauter property - <br />the City could clean up the blighted area. With regard to the Maken property - when we start <br />developing an industrial park, we might still have some smaller businesses that we might not <br />want in this front yard, but they are good businesses still the same. <br /> <br />Councihnember Hendriksen asked why would we try to market and bring in business. Mate <br />moved out because of looking at the adjacent junkyard. He is certain there has to be tons of <br />violations of Danny's Tranny conditional use permit. Why expend dollars to do the Maken <br />property without buying the whole thing. <br /> <br />Mr. Norman suggested that if someday Council wants the asphalt company out, we should put <br />buildings up around them so they cannot buy more property and expand. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session - March 6, 2000 <br /> Page 5 of 8 <br /> <br /> <br />