Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />in which the value increases as a result of that improvement and no more. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ippel stated that the law forces a realistic look at cost versus <br />benefit; financing method should be decided after costs are known. Is it <br />possible to back away from taxing districts once they are established. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley replied that taxing districts can be abandoned at any time in the <br />same manner in which they were established provided there is no debt incurred <br />in the district. The procedure of establishing a financing method prior to <br />knowing the costs is not a backward process when there is no specific <br />improvement project being considered. Council is being asked to establish a <br />uniform policy to pay for storm sewer improvements should they become necessary <br />in order that Ramsey's growth will not be quite as strenuous. <br /> <br />Mr. Hardin inquired if it would be worthwhile to consider changing the boundary <br />lines of the West District to include Hwy. #10 and attempt to get State <br />participation in the costs of storm sewer improvements in that area. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka stated that he has talked to the State and they ususally pay their <br />fair share. Including Hwy. #10 in a taxing district is not necessary because <br />the State cannot be taxed; their participation is a negotiated item <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka proceeded to identify some of the existing drainage problem areas <br />in the City and stated that those problems will compound with future <br />development. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that another approach to curbing drainage problems would be <br />to place a moratorium on development until such time as storm systems are <br />properly developed. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka stated that in the Fall of 1985, studies were conducted and it was <br />found that the water table drops 700'-800' across Hwy. #10. An initial storm <br />sewer improvement project is being considered that would provide an outlet for <br />drainage to the other side of Hwy. 10 and it is hoped that this $500,000.00 <br />project would alleviate problems in the whole district. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley noted that when drainage systems are installed, it can take years <br />before relief is realized. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fults suggested that the City of Anoka be approached regarding <br />their participation in the cost of a drainage system going across Hwy. #10. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka stated that by mid-summer the entire city should be mapped out <br />into taxing districts. River's Bend and Flintwood II will be excluded because <br />they have paid for their improvements. Those areas could be assessed for storm <br />sewer maintenance in the future. When Flintwood II developed, the citizens in <br />Flintwood I petitioned against the storm sewer improvements and the developer <br />had to pick up the entire cost of the improvements. The City then passed a <br />resolution that any future subdivisions would be required to reimburse that <br />developer their drainage assessment within that district at the same rate the <br />developer had to pay at current prices. Flintwood I would have been flooding <br />if Flintwood II had not put in storm sewers and this proves how difficult it is <br />to put a special assessment project through. <br />April 22, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />