My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-17-1993 CC MIN - SPECIAL-JOINT
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Minutes
>
City Council 1974 - Present
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
02-17-1993 CC MIN - SPECIAL-JOINT
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:34:32 AM
Creation date
3/15/2005 1:24:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
CCM
date
2/17/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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 />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />City Council/Utilities Commission Minutes <br />February 17, 1993 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />The method must be equitable and consistent. <br /> <br />2. It should not affect rate payers. <br /> <br />3. Developers should have to pay all associated fees prior to development. <br /> <br />4. If development doesn't occur, the Utilities must be able to handle the <br />payments. <br /> <br />5. A reserve must be set aside for emergencies. <br /> <br />George indicated that he agreed with the concept of a water impact fee. <br /> <br />A brief discussion was held regarding bonding for this project. Lori <br />Johnson, Finance Director, indicated that there were several methods <br />available; one being through water revenue bond, the other being a General <br />Obligation Bond. She indicated that pure revenue bonds are rather rare in <br />Minnesota and indicated there were several negatives including a higher <br />interest rate, a one year of debt service reserve requirement, and a pledge <br />of 120% of revenues to debt service. These factors make revenue bonds an <br />expensive and less desirable financing mechanism. <br /> <br />There was considerable discussion regarding the proposed water impact fee <br />policy and how it would be applied equally to new development and existing <br />development currently not served by the water utility. All concurred that a <br />policy would need to be approved in order to make collection of the Water <br />Impact Fees (WIF) equitable. <br /> <br />Mayor Duitsman indicated that TIF monies are available from TIF District No. <br />4, to help finance the water tower needed near Orono Park. Commissioner <br />Tralle gave background information on TIF No. 4 and the RDF settlement, <br />indicating that funds would be available from the source. <br /> <br />Mayor <br />if the <br />10. <br />10. <br /> <br />Duitsman questioned how much additional water storage would be needed <br />Council approved the extension of water utilities along East Highway <br />Terry Maurer discussed water improvements needed to serve East Highway <br /> <br />Councilmember Scheel expressed concern over the City wells causing problems <br />with other wells in the area because they are all in the same aquifer. City <br />Engineer, Terry Maurer, explained that this would not be a problem. <br /> <br />Commissioner Simpson and Bill Birrenkott both indicated that the water <br />utility would be able to support the debt to construct a well in the western <br />area and a well in the northern area. <br /> <br />Mayor Duitsman asked whether the water impact fee would be a charge just to <br />developers or whether everyone hooking into the water system would need to <br />pay the Water Impact Fee. <br /> <br />Pat Klaers indicated that there was a <br />development proposals as fees are <br />that the WAC fee be raised in order <br /> <br />problem in collecting the WIF on <br />collected only on plats. He suggested <br />to cover an amount which would be <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.