Minutes-5 /11/1983 (2)

Brown asked if the council decided that they did not want residential growth in area 6, would the county think the town did not want to grow at all. TePaske stated that the county could look at the area as in area 4, which is a suburban residential district under county jurisdiction. Don't have to create another area for development. Could develop part of property currently inside limits, but probably not unless it changed ownership. Potter stated that the council should make a decision so that TePaske has a recommendation to take to the county. Cox stated that a development would raise tax revenues. TePaske stated that there is a breakeven point where new houses cannot pay for themselves with tax revenues. After a while they need other subsidy. Commercial property raises the tax base. Just expanding with residential does not take care of its own costs. TePaske asked if he should add staging to the report so that the town could halt development and call for extra studies. Brown stated that he has seen several people leave town because there is not place to build and it will continue to happen more and more. Staging is a good idea so town can have control over development. He stated that the town does need an area to grow. Stevens and Rohret agreed to the staging controls. Council consensus to go with alternative two which allows development after annexation, contiguous to city limits, with staging and a review by council after each stage. TePaske stated that area seven was limited in size more for irregular shape than for any other reason, from map one to map two. He discussed the two alternatives contained in the report. Alternative one would remain agricultural in use and alternative two would provide for commercial highway growth, and would develop only after annexation and services were provided. Council consensus to go with alternative two. Potter asked if it would be voluntary annexation. TePaske stated that he would not rule out involuntary annexation. It has to be seen in the best interest of the community as a whole. Potter asked if taxes on agricultural land were higher in town. TePaske explained that agricultural land inside city limits is taxed at a lesser rate that other properties inside town, but this makes up for other factors which affect it, so it actually even out whether the ag land is inside limits or outside of town. Potter called for other discussion. No other discussion. Motion Stevens second Rohret to adjourn at 7:30 p.m. Carried unanimously.