Laserfiche WebLink
47 <br />48 <br />�49 �iscussiore Ytems <br />50 D�ring tlne past 2 months, the Council has raised related inq�iries wi�h regard to the ex�sting <br />51 Twin Lakes TTF Dzsiricts and tl�e�r ability to fu�d necessary impravements in t�ie Twin Lalces <br />S2 Redevelopment Area, including TIF Distrieti #11. The Co�znci� alsa inquired on th� ability �or <br />53 t�e City tt� compel ct�rrer�t or previous properky oyvners to pay for environxnental clea�up. Each <br />54 of t�ese subjeet z�aatters is dxscussed 'rn greaiear detai� belvw. <br />55 <br />56 TI� District #�ll � <br />57 TIF District #11 �as established in 1990 and i� schedulecl to be decertified in 2016. By the e�d <br />5$ of 20Q7, this District will have accumuIated approxirnately $2.5 xnillion, and is expected to <br />S9 accurnu.late an additional $�SD,000 per year through 2Q�6 holding all ather £actors co�stant. <br />60 Al�hough nflt �orc�raaliy designated �ar any specific �aarcel or p�rpase, tk�is District has �been <br />61 tent�tively earr�arked to k�etp �urther generai redev�lapme�t eosts i� the greatex Twin Lakes <br />62 Redevelapment Area which may 'rnclude; pu�lic infrastr�cture, land write-downs, enviranmentaI <br />63 r�naediatio�, oz� ather eligi�ie costs. <br />6� <br />65 <br />66 <br />67 <br />68 <br />69 <br />70 <br />71 <br />72 <br />73 <br />74 <br />75 <br />76 <br />77 <br />78 <br />79 <br />sa <br />S1 <br />$2 <br />$3 <br />$4 <br />85 <br />$6 <br />87 <br />�8 <br />89 <br />90 <br />91 <br />TI�` District #� 1 was on� of �he ma�or �undir�g sourees ea.rmariced under the now deiunct <br />Redevelop�nen� Ag:re�ment with Raseville Tvvin La�es LLC. If �ast experiences are ar� <br />indication, if is Iikely �hat thcse mnnies �vill be needed in sorne form nr fashion to �'aeilitate <br />iuture development. <br />City Coz�trol„over Enviroriz�ental Remediatxon <br />The Council anay r�call pr�vious discussions on the subject of $etting the responsible party ta <br />pay for the environmenial cleanup. The ability of ihe City to cornpel either foz�ner ar cuz�ren� <br />property ow�ers is k�ampered by: <br />a) Qur ability to pinpoint vvhere and whe:� the pollul:ion origina�ed from <br />b} Our ability to pin�oint who was responsible foz• the cantaminatiorz <br />c) The fact that the contamination is contained in the gro�tnd as opposed in the public air or <br />water suppiy. <br />Whi�e ��e City has sc��n� enviroiunental daia t�at provicies �s w�th � a�proximatian €�f hnw <br />�uc�Z a�d wl�zeh type af contaminatiar� is present, we da not have suffzcient information th�t <br />wou�d atlaw �zs ta de�nite�y cc��c2ude where, when, az�d by w�o� t�e pallution originated from. <br />T1nat process cnuld take years and would come at a coz�sidexable cost. And because the <br />cantazninatian i� its current state dnes not pose an ir�.mediate public threat, the City cannot <br />compel ih� curr��t praperty owners to elean it up. Tl�e Minnesota Pollu�ian Cantral Agency <br />ca�ne to a szz�zzi�ar canclusian i�t a leti�r provzded to City Staff in 2006. <br />A� �YI15 �liit�, o€.u� best (perhaps only} recourse to ensuxzng tlaat the contami�atian is cleaned up is <br />to capi�alize on future redeveiop�nent r�vhich �vill trigger federal and state xnandates ta clean up <br />t�e cani�atninated soil. A1�ernativeTy, the City cau�d e�aose ta p�zrsue le�al aetion aga��st current <br />and �'ormer property owners; hawever tl�is would lik�ly entail consid�rable �u61'zc costs. <br />� <br />