Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />utilities if an MSA road were develo~d through their pro~rty. <br /> <br />City Engineer Raatikka stated that it would be difficult to get that road <br />designated MSA if it does not tie into another MSA road and Anoka does not <br />have intentions to have their portion in their industrial park designated <br />as MSA. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that Ramsey should use it I S resources to get the trunk <br />line across to the south side of }My. #10; relying on special assessments <br />to get across #10 will be next to impossible to come by because the cost <br />would exceed the benefit to those that would be assessed. <br /> <br />Chairman Greenberg stated that through many years of planning, it was <br />decided that the Eggam(spone property would be developed with utilities; <br />without utilities that area will be marketed and developed with storage <br />uses. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Ippel and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to <br />reconunend that Cotmcil pursue Alternative #2, Phases 1 and 2, for sanitary <br />sewer and Alternative 1, Phase 1 for mtmicipal water. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Commissioner Wagner inquired if utilizing Chapter 444 <br />limits the City to that method forever. Mr. Hartley stated that built-in <br />to Chapter 444 there is the opporttmity use ~cial assessments to provide <br />services. Mr. Hartley stated that the city needs to think it I s pol icy <br />through as to when it is the right time to use ci ty resources to pay for <br />utilities as opposed to waiting for special assessments. Mr. Hartley <br />stated that there are certain kinds of improvements that are very difficult <br />to ~cially assess such as massive size trtmks and crossovers at natural <br />and manmade barriers. Chairman Greenberg stated that one more alternative <br />should be considered - rtmning trtmk lines through Eggam/Spone property <br />and getting Anoka cooperation on MSA road designations through that area. <br />Commissioner Ippel stated that Eggam!Spone had their opportunity for <br />services and they refused it at previous hearings; that additional $100,000 <br />it would take to serve that property could be used to get the trunk across <br />to the south side of Hwy. #10. Commissioner Ippel stated that the <br />alternative proposed in this motion will bring services to those who want <br />them, provides the most effective use of tax increment funds and has the <br />most flexibility for expanding with future needs. Commissioner Muller <br />stated that he got the impression that Anoka is willing to cooperate on MSA <br />road designations. Commissioner Ippel stated that EDC can proceed with <br />this recommendation and during that interim period before it gets to <br />Cotmcil, EDC can meet with Anoka. <br /> <br />Motion failed. Voting Yes: Commissioners Ippel and Wagner. Voting No: <br />Chairman Greenberg, Commissioners Muller and Hardin. Absent: <br />Commissioners Vevea, Kurak and Fults. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Hardin and seconded by Commissioner Ippel to inform <br />City Cotmcil that the Economic Development Commission is interested in <br />pursuing Alternative 2, Phases 1 and 2, for sanitary sewer and Alternative <br />1, Phase 1, for mtmicipal water but that the Commission will be meeting <br />with property owners to discuss other possibilities for sewer trunk <br />EDC/February 18, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />