Laserfiche WebLink
assessments. The proposed ordinance states that a developer must provide <br /> 25% cash deposit up front and a letter of credit guaranteeing remainder <br /> of payment on assessments. <br /> <br /> Art Raudio stated that normally if cities want economic growth, they are <br /> going to have to.be competitive with other communities~ He further commented <br /> that the City would have the right to retain letter of credit, using those <br /> monies to the City's advantage, for the entire length of time stated in the <br /> agreement even if the assessments are paid off prior to that period stated. <br /> <br /> Mr. Berg.stated that the City will establish PIR funds and those funds will <br /> continue to grow and can be utilized for oversizing, thereby eliminating the <br />'need to assess residential property owner. . <br /> <br />Commissioner Cox reiterated the fact that developers have been used by the <br />City, the City's major aim is not to'burden residential homeowner and how <br />important it is to obtain the connections to'the edge of Ramsey with Metro <br />funds. He further noted that Cf Ramsey does not present a need and accept <br />the connections, when and if municipal sewer and water does become necessary <br />for Ramsey, which could happen if there is contamination resulting from the <br />landfill, then those utilities'will have to'be brought to the City of Ramsey <br />as the expense of the res}dents. Commissioner Cox then~gave a brief history <br />of boundary negotiations between"Anoka"andlRamsey which led to the landfill <br />and other potential tax base property being-located in Ramsey.' Commissioner <br />Cox also noted that residential homestead tax is very little in comparison to <br />the services Ramsey resident~ are receiving. <br /> <br />Art. Raudio agreed that a certain 'amount of industry and business are required <br />in 6rder to support the community. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Fults to recommend Ramsey City Council adopt the proposed <br />utility assessment ordinance with the following guidelines: <br /> <br />1) That the adoption of the utility assessment ordinance be an amendment <br /> to the subdivision code. <br /> <br />2) That the EDC supports the installation of municipal utilities in only <br /> undeveloped land and then only when the landowners request municipal <br /> util?t~es. <br /> <br />3) That the EDC recommends-changing~the Proposed assessment ordinance such <br /> that a developer who requests municipal utilities can pledge his land <br /> as collateral in lieu of a letter of-credit or bond.- <br /> <br />4) <br /> <br />It is further directed that Council include in the util.ity assessment <br />ordinance or adopt'by resolution that the EDC shall review-requests for <br />municipal utilities to ~nsure no .individual is]un, fairly treated in any <br />expansion of municipal utilities. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cox seconded~ the motion.]for discussion. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Commissioner Cox brought up point #3 of Commissioner Fults' <br />motion regarding differential between letter of credit and allowing for land as <br />collateral. Commissioner Cox noted that bonding has been almost impossible to <br />obtain because of defaults in the past and the current trend'is towards a local <br /> <br />'~Sp EDC/April 15, 1983 <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />