Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />regarding extension of utilities to the industrial area but because of a couple <br />of events, has not completed that task. The subject of storm sewer districts <br />consumed a lot of time and expect that would hold true at Council's April 22 <br />meeting also. Staff will recommend that Council conduct the April 22 hearing <br />and to continue the hearing to April 29. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that it has come to his attention that it was not <br />necessarily approved or agreed to that tax increment revenues would be used to <br />provide deferrment of special assessments for municipal utilities. EDC and <br />Staff need to address the following issues: 1) Use of tax increment revenues; <br />2) How big of a project do we do; 3) Do we or do we not want to use tax <br />increment financing. As of today, we have until September 1, 1986 in which to <br />sell tax exempt bonds; the future of that type of financing is undefined. <br /> <br />Refer to page 4 for further action. <br /> <br />Case #2: Discussion Re~~rdin~ Commission Position On Proposed Establish- <br />ment Of Storm Sewer Improvement Tax Districts (South Central <br />and West Drainaie Districts: <br /> <br />Commissioner Ippel inquired as to the status of establishing storm sewer taxing <br />districts. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that storm sewer taxing districts is on the Council agenda <br />for April 22; expect Council to take some kind of action and that could be no <br />action. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fults stated that the commercial/industrial property owners he has <br />talked to prefer taxing districts rather than ad valorem to pay for storm sewer <br />improvements. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka noted that the taxing district method, just as the ad valorem, is <br />based on assessed valuation. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that the financing options are ad valorem, storm sewer <br />districts and special assessments. Storm sewers can be financed with tax <br />increment, but on a city wide basis it is not practical. The reason is because <br />one of the key principles of tax increment is property valuation growth and <br />that is not necessarily the case on a city wide basis. Storm sewers may not <br />increase property value enough to create sufficient increment to pay for the <br />storm sewers. In the last legislative session, a law was adopted that says <br />cities can levy a tax, and even save money up, to pay for infrastructure. That <br />law did not give cities borrowing authority beyond what they already have. <br />Saving up that much money takes years and borrowing requires a referendum of <br />the entire community. If this option is not used, that leaves taxing districts <br />and special assessments. With taxing districts, it is more common for benefits <br />to be spread over a larger area of property. With special assessments, it is a <br />more narrowly defined area of benefit. It is possible special assessments <br />could be levied to all that larger area based on acreage, but the owners of <br />larger parcels in the area would probably appeal the assessment. State <br />constitution and laws led the courts to interpret that this word we use called <br />'benefit' is well defined. Courts know exactly what it is and they defined it <br />in this way. Property is benefitted by any improvements in the same proportion <br />April 22, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />