Laserfiche WebLink
9.50.50 Subdivision 2 n. It has become a policy position within recent development <br />agreements that the subdividers are responsible to put street lights in their subdivisions <br />and pay for operation and maintenance for the first three years with subsequent <br />operation and maintenance costs being billed to purchasers of homes within the <br />subdivision. This provision adds street lights within the ordinance as a Stage I <br />improvement. <br /> <br />9.50.50 Subdivision 3 b 2. This paragraph currently allows for a subdivision to be <br />constructed with the opportunity for gravel streets rather than pavement being approved <br />by the City. I believe it is the desire of City Council to discontinue this possible waiver <br />in that gravel streets are an ongoing maintenance concern of the public works <br />department. <br /> <br />9.50.50 Subdivision 3 b 4 deals with storm drainage. I have added minor wording <br />changes, the impact of which may cause developers to put storm drainage both inside <br />and outside of their plat. The current situation in Ramsey is that we have a significant <br />need for storm drainage improvements and effectively have made only minor steps in <br />dealing with this need. The changes suggested herein put developers on notice that it is <br />an issue they will have to deal with. <br /> <br />9.50.50 Subdivision 3 b 9. This language states that park and trail development will <br />occur within the neighborhood park as a Stage I improvement. <br /> <br />9.50.50 Subdivision 3 b I0 states that street lights will occur as a Stage I improvement. <br /> <br />9.50.50 Subdivision 4 a and also 9.50.50 Subdivision 5 a: In the past few <br />development agreements City Council stated that the developer is wholly responsible <br />for the public infrastructure which occurs within that subdivision. However, should <br />the City require upsizing of the utilities or oversizing of the street due to the community <br />need that this upsizing or oversizing meets that the subdivider should not be responsible <br />for this increased cost. City Council has further taken a position that a specific formula <br />of ~unding assistance is not wholly appropriate in that each development and each <br />subdivision has its unique circumstances and may provide varying levels of <br />improvement to the community beyond the subdivision itself. The above policy <br />position has worked fairly well in all of the development agreements with the exception <br />of the Rivenwick Development Agreement. There the developers asserted that since <br />there was an MSA street within the subdivision, the City should provide funding for at <br />least 50% of that street. I believe that the language proposed herein will serve to <br />eliminate that argument (but possibly not the discussion). <br /> <br />9.50.50 Subdivision 4 d and e. These provisions with some minor format changes <br />currently exist in 9.50.50 Subdivision 8 a and d. I have just suggested moving the <br />paragraphs to Subdivision 4 in that Subdivision 4 and these two paragraphs all deal <br />with escrow requirements. <br /> <br />9.50.50 Subdivision 4 f. The City formerly utilized an independent public accountant <br />to review financial papers of developers. This has proven expensive and the result <br />from these accounting firms has been unacceptable. Therefore, we have moved to an in- <br />house accounting review by our Finance Department. The changes suggested herein <br />reflect that change in practice. <br /> <br />9.50.58. This is new language which provides a definition of a bituminous trail which <br />does not exist in the present ordinance. <br /> <br /> i <br /> ! <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I' <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />! <br /> I <br />I' <br /> I <br /> <br /> <br />