Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />tools available. <br /> <br />Ms. Norris stated that one contingen~ plan is to provide temporary sewer <br />service to Mate Punch and Die by way of a lift station and lateral pipe along <br />Sunfish Blvd., which 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 COJIIOOn and reliable, and with <br />various design considerations, they will accomodate wet industry. <br /> <br />Commissioner DeLuca inquired if there would be sufficient time in that 'window' <br />between Federal and State action to allow Ramsey to go for tax increment <br />financing and remain in compliance with City Charter requirements. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley replied that the charter proviSion refers to improvements that are <br />specially assessed and the sewer project does not necessarily have to be <br />specially assessed. It might be more appropriate to look at a service <br />availability charge, user charge or connection charge as a tool for collecting <br />revenues. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Wagner and seconded by Commissioner Fults to reco.mmend <br />that Ci ty Council proceed wi th a feasibili ty study for sewer, water and storm <br />sewer wi th an option for a scaled down version of sewer only in the Ci ty , s <br />Industrial area. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Commissioner Hardin stated that he would like to see a <br />cornpuison of cost figures and areas to be served between the full public <br />improvement system versus the scaled down version. Mr. Hartley stated that the <br />information will be conveyed to EDC. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Greenberg, Canrnissioners Hardin, Wagner, <br />DeLuca, Vevea and Fults. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioners Muller and <br />Kurak. <br /> <br />Chairman Greenberg inquired as to the effect of this neow legislation upon <br />recent discussions of establishing the airport area as a tax increment <br />district. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley replied that he has not heard that the establishment of tax <br />increment districts is in jeop:irdy; tax increment districts are State law and <br />the elimination of tax exempt bonds is a Federal action; note that if no action <br />occurs within two years of district establishment, the area is disbanded and <br />any accrued funds are reverted back to the normal taxing authorities. <br /> <br />Ms. Norris stated that she has heard that tax increment districts would be <br />limited to redevelopnent purposes only. <br /> <br />(";:)~e t7! Discn~~ion R~ardinljl Prom~P-d ~j.rDOrt: ~p-lo~nt: CCQnt.inup-rn t <br /> <br />Mr. Jack Ippel stated that the Airport Canrnission's reco.mmendation to pursue <br />establishing the Industrial area (including airport and some residential) as aPtax increment district is probably not worth proceeding within vieow of recent <br />legislation regarding tax increment financing. <br /> <br />AP~~r.. QF F.mNO~;rC DJWF.TllPMEr:g't' ~~S~ION MEF.Tr~ ~+~[)TF,S <br />February 12, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />