My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1985-01-08
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Minutes - City Council
>
Minutes 1985
>
1985-01-08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2005 5:12:58 AM
Creation date
8/11/2005 12:30:49 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Minutes <br />January 8, 1985 <br /> <br />Winkels stated the Plan enV1Slons that the District itself <br />would last no more than fifteen years. The actual bond <br />would be paid off in 1996, which would be a little less than <br />ten years of increment; recommending (1) the document be <br />referred to Ramsey County and the Mounds View School District <br />for review and (2) public hearing be continued until February <br />26, 1985. which will give us time to receive comments from <br />those two bodies and will be matched up with final plans, <br />rezoning, and development agreement will be available for the <br />continuation of this public hearing. <br /> <br />Arlin Waelti, O'Connor & Hannon. stated that Tax Increment <br />District #6 is a redevelopment district which means that, <br />under the law, this district could run out 25 years, or 23 <br />years from the collection of the first tax increment; the <br />most recent cash flows that were done found that we could do <br />the financing for this district in about ten years. A good <br />portion of this $2 million issue is goin9 toward land aqui- <br />sition. <br /> <br />Waelti restated Winkels two recommendations; distributed doc- <br />ment of the project; stated that when a new TIF is established. <br />the prior districts are modified; and stated that when the City <br />wishes to take increments from one district and move them to <br />another district, it can do so. <br /> <br />Harcus asked if the accounting for each district would be main- <br />tained separately. <br /> <br />Winkels responded that separate accounts are kept for each <br />district but the funds are co-mingled; expenses and proceeds <br />for each district are kept separately. <br /> <br />As there was no one else present to speak to the issue. Harcus <br />moved. seconded by Blomquist. to DIRECT STAFF TO FORWARD THE <br />PROPOSED PLAN FOR MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT #1 AND <br />TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT #6 TO THE MOUNDS VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT <br />AND TO RAMSEY COUNTY FOR THEIR REVIEW AND TO CONTINUE THE <br />PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL FEBRUARY 26, 1985 AT 7:35 P.M. <br /> <br />Winkels had nothing to add to the staff report concerning a <br />request for a variance to allow for a seven-foot fence in a <br />front yard for Thermo King Sales & Service, Inc. <br /> <br />John Jorissen, Controller for Thermo King. restated the <br />reasons why the Planning Commission denied the variance. <br /> <br />Janecek asked if the original plans had landscaping plans <br />included and asked if hedges, shrubbery, and/or trees <br />could accomplish the same goals as a fence. Jorissen re- <br />sponded that children could go through hedges until they <br />are thick enough to prevent that from happening; land- <br />scaping was carried out as originally proposed. <br /> <br />Page Six <br /> <br />Variance - Thermo- <br />King <br />Report 85-6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.