Laserfiche WebLink
<br />TRUST <br />,~ <br />PU'BLlC <br />LAND <br />m~mm RAMSEY CITY MINNESOTA <br />.. ' <br /> <br />Feasibility Study <br /> <br />Executive Summary <br /> <br />The Trust for Public Land has analyzed strategies for the City of Ramsey to explore <br />financing the acquisition of land to protect natural areas and farmland and provide land for <br />parks, natural lands, and greenways. This report first briefly summarizes the current state of <br />the city-its land, its people, and its economy, and the growth trends that have shaped it in <br />recent years. Understanding these factors is critical to design an appropriate open space <br />funding strategy. Next, the report analyzes financing strategies and focuses on general <br />obligation bonds as the most viable option for funding a natural areas and parks land <br />acquisition program, including their legal authority and revenue-raising capacity. The final <br />section gives an election history, useful if the county decides to ask voters to approve a <br />dedicated funding source at the ballot. <br /> <br />Nationwide, communities have used a range of public financing options to fund parks and <br />open space preservation. These include general obligation bonds, the local sales tax, the <br />property tax, and less frequently used mechanisms such as special assessment districts, real <br />estate transfer taxes, impact fees, and income taxes. In Minnesota, local government funding <br />for land conservation has primarily taken the form of general obligation bonds backed by <br />property taxes. Other options are available to local governments including general <br />appropriations, and potentially a local option sales tax. A local sales tax would require <br />approval of the Minnesota Legislature. <br /> <br />Currently, in the City of Ramsey, funding for parks and recreation largely has come from <br />General Fund appropriations. The Trost for Public Land finds that the city's most <br />viable funding mechanism to address the need for additional parks, recreation and <br />open space lands is to issue general obligation bonds, backed by the property taX. <br /> <br />A general obligation (G.O.) bond would provide a robust source of revenue for the city. For <br />example, a $4 million bond would add roughly $320,970 to the city's annual debt service and <br />would cost the average homeowner approximately $30 per year, adding 0.0141 mills to the <br />city's existing property tax rate. The city appears to have ample capacity to issue additional <br />bonds under its legal and policy debt limits. However, city staff and/ or financial advisors <br />should be consulted to determine the exact amount available at any particular time under <br />both of these limitations. To more fully understand the issuance of a G.O. bond please see <br />the section on bonds later in this report. Proceeds from a general obligation bond issuance <br />may not be used for ongoing expenses, such as operations and maintenance. <br /> <br />A G.O. bond would provide a large immediate source of funds forland conservation and <br />parks development, and would enable the city to acquire available lands from willing sellers. <br />Bond funding would further require majority voter approval (a small amount of non-voted <br />debt capacity may exist within the city's capital improvement program). <br /> <br />While it may seem to be a very difflcult task to gain such approval, local land conservation <br />ballot measures have continued to enjoy strong public support across the country. <br /> <br />3 <br />