Laserfiche WebLink
City Administrator Hagen asked when these tours are conducted. <br /> <br />Representative Niska said he was not sure. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked Representative Niska to talk about other cities' funding for water <br />treatment plants and how Ramsey only got a small portion of their requested amount. <br /> <br />Representative Niska explained that this is a political process and not just a formula. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley stated that at the beginning of the session it seemed as though Ramsey was <br />not getting anywhere and they were not hopefully until the end when things fell into place. He <br />asked if the reason for this is just politics or something different that the City could do to move the <br />needle to show progress early for a better result. <br /> <br />Representative Niska explained that there is typically a budgeting year followed by a bonding year <br />and this year was a budgeting year; however, there was no bonding bill last year. He noted that a <br />lot of the discussion surrounding this year’s bonding bill was about taking what was on the bonding <br />bill that did not pass last year and prioritizing that. He said that the reason that Ramsey was not <br />considered earlier was due to the fact that their requests were not in last year’s bonding bill. He <br />added that there were a lot of other factors in play to whether there would be a bonding bill that <br />had Ramsey included at all. He shared that the Minnesota Constitution requires that general <br />obligation bonds be passed with a super majority. He explained that this became a negotiating <br />point for a lot of other issues and it was up in the air as to whether there would even be any general <br />obligation bonding in the bill. He shared that the Speaker of the House told them that if there was <br />no deal to pass a general obligation bond there would be a cash capital investment bill but it would <br />not include very many projects that were advocated by republicans. He stated that everything fell <br />into place at the end of the session and they were able to get a small amount of funding for Ramsey. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht thanked Representative Niska for coming out to share with the Council. <br />He asked what happened with the charitable gambling legislation. <br /> <br />Representative Niska explained that there were some pretty significant changes in the regulation <br />of electronic pull tabs in the tax bill. He noted that he spoke out against these provisions and shared <br />that they will not know what the effects of this are. He stated that the charities who have gotten a <br />lot of financial benefit from these electronic pull tabs are very concerned. He said the changes will <br />prohibit the most attractive features of these pull tabs. He added that there is a tax reduction on the <br />charities. He explained that the thought process is that the tax reduction will help offset these <br />numbers. He noted that it has been pushed off far enough that the games will adapt. He shared that <br />the argument against the electronic pull tabs is that they compete with casinos. He said he was <br />very disappointed in this change and that it will be harmful to the Anoka Ramsey Athletic <br />Association, the Lions Clubs, and every organization that is offering pull tabs. <br /> <br />Councilmember Olson thanked Representative Niska for coming and sharing everything with the <br />Council. He asked about this year’s bonding bill and since it was supposed to be last year’s bonding <br />bill if there will be another one next year. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session / June 27, 2023 <br />Page 2 of 5 <br /> <br />