VN-243 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes Page Six January 8, 1985 Winkels stated the Plan envisions that the District itself would last no more than fifteen years. The actual bond would be paid off in 1996, which would be a little less than ten years of increment; recommending (1) the document be referred to Ramsey County and the Mounds View School District for review and (2) public hearing be continued until February 26, 1985, which will dive us time to receive comments from those two bodies and will be matched up with final plans, rezoning, and development agreement will be available for the continuation of this public hearing. Arlin Waelti, O'Connor & Hannon, stated that Tax Increment District =6 is a redevelopment district which means that, under the law, this district could run out 25 years, or 23 years from the collection of the first tax increment; the most recent cash flows that were done found that we could do the financinca for this district in about ten years. A good portion of this S2 million issue is going toward land aqui- sition. Waelti restated Winkels two recommendations; distributed doc- ment of the project; stated that when a new TIF is established, the prior districts are modified; and stated that when the City wishes to take increments from one district and move them to another district, it can do so. Harcus asked if the accounting for each district would be main- tained separately. Winkels responded that separate accounts are kept for each district but the funds are co-mingled; expenses and proceeds for each district are kept separately. As there was no one else present to speak to the issue, Harcus moved, seconded by Blomguist, to DIRECT STAFF TO FORWARD THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT #0 AND TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT =6 TO THE MOUNDS VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT AND TO RAMSEY COUNTY FOR THEIR REVIEW AND TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL FEBRUARY 26, 1985 AT 7:35 P.M. Winkels had nothing to add to the staff report concerning a Variance - Thermo- request for a variance to allow for a seven-foot fence in a King front yard for Thermo King Sales & Service, Inc. Report 85-6 John Jorissen, Controller for Thermo King, restated the t reasons why the Planning Commission denied the variance. Janecek asked if the original plans had landscaping plans }=r included and asked if hedges, shrubbery, and/or trees could accomplish the same goals as a fence. Jorissen re- sPonded that children could go through hedges until they are thick enough to prevent that from happening; land- scaping was carried out as originally proposed.