My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council Work Session - 07/29/2003
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council Work Session
>
2003
>
Minutes - Council Work Session - 07/29/2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/24/2025 4:09:01 PM
Creation date
9/11/2003 10:07:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council Work Session
Document Date
07/29/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
of financing. One approach to the examination of new capital improvements is to equate an <br />annualized maintenance cost with it. This can be both purchase expenses and identifying the full <br />time employee equivalents needed each year for operations. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak suggested that they collect a fee in addition to park dedication to pay for <br />the maintenance needs. Currently park dedication is $1,800 per unit so they could take a <br />percentage of the $1,800 or charge a flat fee for the maintenance fund. Another option would to <br />adjust the park dedication fee and any dedicated increase would go into the maintenance fund. <br />Currently the City has a very health park dedication fund that they cannot use because they <br />cannot maintain the new facilities. A lot of general fund dollars goes into maintenance and <br />maybe they could balance that out by creating a maintenance fund realizing that it will not always <br />be a source of funding. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated that the general budget is a main concern for him and it seems that <br />there is something broken in the system where they charge developers to build complexes, but <br />not maintenance of the complex. The maintenance cost goes straight to the taxpayers. He did <br />not think that developers cared where they spend the money and it seems to him that it would be <br />logical to charge a maintenance fee to the developer because it goes toward the park. Mr. Elvig <br />stated that he supported the idea, but he was not sure what the split would be. He also agreed <br />that it would probably only be a two or three year program. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec noted that the City is unable to use park dedication fees for the maintenance of <br />parks. <br /> <br />Finance Officer Lund explained that park dedication fees have to be used for park improvements, <br />but if they were to establish a park maintenance fee separate from park dedication, then those <br />funds could be used for maintenance of the parks. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated that he thought that they were going down a "slippery slope" <br />because park dedication is collected to build parks to accommodate the needs of the development <br />but the people using the park are creating maintenance needs, not the development. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen replied that the park is being used as a result of the development. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that some day they would have to make a commitment to use general funds <br />monies for park maintenance. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook noted that they already have shortfalls in their park dedication fund to <br />complete all o f the capital improvement projects. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak explained that developers would not be paying any more; the difference <br />would be the City would be talcing a percentage of the fee that is already collected. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen felt that establishing a park maintenance fund would help supplement <br />the general fund. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session/July 29, 2003 <br /> Page 10 of 13 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.