Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />Department's report, it appears that only Hennepin County, as a whole, would <br />achieve reduced property tax costs if property were regionally funded. St. <br />Paul taxpayers would probably see a reduced burden initially but suburban <br />people would actually pay more than if Ramsey County continued to carry the <br />burden. Therefore, Ramsey County should seek state or regional funding onl <br />if a significant portion of it comes from non-property tax sources, such as <br />taxes on recreational equipment, license fees, user fees and other recreational <br />resources. <br />3) The Metropolitan Inter-County Association has discussed this issue at some <br />length during the last week. At MICA's Legislative Committee meeting on <br />Tuesday, June 17, it appeared that there is little consensus among the 7 <br />counties about an approach to operations and maintenance of the regional <br />parks. In order to meet the documentation printing deadline we were not <br />able to include the discussion and action from the MICA Board meeting on <br />Wednesday in this report. However; those of you who attended may wish to <br />speak to the results of that session. At the Tuesday meeting, it appeared <br />that Anoka, Scott, and Hennepin Counties are all more concerned about the <br />issue of loss of control than they are about the cost of maintenance and <br />operations. Only Dakota County expressed.a strong concern about the effect <br />upon the property tax and the inability of the taxpayers to afford the costs. <br />The Legislative Committee was unable to develop a resolution on the proposed <br />• Policy Plan that a majority of those present could recommend to the MICA <br />Board of Directors for adoption. Thus, it may be difficult to achieve strong <br />support among the metropolitan counties fora specific funding proposal to the <br />Legislature. <br />4) In the case of Washington County, Metropolitan Council has intimated a <br />willingness to attempt to exercise its statutory authority to proceed to <br />acquire and develop regional parks in that county without the County's <br />participation. Washington County recently rejected $13,000,000 in <br />acquisition funds because it opposes two of the proposed park locations. <br />It appears possible that should any county refuse to implement the regional <br />park system that the Council would, rather than act directly, which it has <br />the authority to do, request that another implementing agency undertake the <br />program in that county. <br />MT:gb <br />Attachments <br />cc: Larry Brown <br />Jim Kavaloski <br /> <br />