Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />May 13, 1986 <br /> <br />Poston stated the proposed policy is the first formal policy <br />for guidelines; stating the policy was designed to allow and <br />facilitate the use of tax increment financing where deemed <br />appropriate and to allow staff and council maximum flexibility <br />in the use of tax increments. <br /> <br />Brandt suggested creating three resolutions from the one in order <br />to specify and clarify various conditions; Poston stated the <br />Board had considered her suggestions, but felt flexibility was <br />the desired outcome; Councilmembers concurred with Poston, feel- <br />ing it would not be in the city's best interest to seemingly <br />place limitations on future developments/redevelopments. <br /> <br />Motion by Schmidt, seconded by Williams, to WAIVE THE READING <br />AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE USE OF TAX <br />INCREMENT FINANCING. <br /> <br />4 Ayes - 1 Naye (Brandt), Motion Carried <br /> <br />Poston reviewed the staff report concerning a resolution <br />endorsing an assessment policy. <br /> <br />Schmidt asked city attorney if there should be anything further <br />added to the proposed resolution; LeFevere stated nothing should <br />be added. <br /> <br />Motion by Brandt, seconded by Williams, to WAIVE THE READING AND <br />ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENDORSING ASSESSMENT POLICY. <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried <br /> <br />Kelley reviewed staff report concerning a resolution establishing <br />a fee for false alarm responses. <br /> <br />Benke asked if a graduated fee has been considered; Kelley hoped <br />the $75 would be sufficient, and felt it would be better to go <br />through an educational process. <br /> <br />Williams stated the fee could easily be amended in the future and <br />moved, seconded by Schmidt, to WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT A <br />RESOLUTION SETTING A FALSE ALARM RESPONSE FEE AS AUTHORIZED BY <br />ARTICLE 4, SECTION 23-50 OF THE NEW BRIGHTON CITY CODE. <br /> <br />Anderson distributed copies of preliminary plans for Veterans <br />Park to councilmembers and to residents and reviewed the plans. <br /> <br />Schmidt stated the council still needs to consider for whom the <br />park is being developed and improved; one concern is that we are <br />going to take away parking spaces from the church; we are talking <br />about focusing on whether or not there should be an adult soft- <br />ball field; and felt there should be a reasonable balance of who <br />is paying for the park and who it is to serve. <br />Benke felt it was a multi-use, multi-client park. <br /> <br />Page Six <br /> <br />Assessment Policy <br />Report 86-102 <br />Resolution 86-47 <br /> <br />False Alarm Response <br />Fees <br />Report 86-103 <br />Resolution 86-48 <br /> <br />Veterans Park - <br />preliminary plans <br />