My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 03/21/1983 - Special
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
1983
>
Minutes - Council - 03/21/1983 - Special
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/15/2025 12:10:25 PM
Creation date
3/29/2004 9:06:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Title
Special
Document Date
03/21/1983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
Question #7: <br /> <br />Refer to Page 5 - 5/10 years really not very long for <br />assessment period. Why can we not look to a longer time, <br />especially if we may see low-moderate income families moving <br />in - the owner's worth will dictate his ability to pay. <br /> <br />Members of City Staff replied that it would be difficult to sell bonds for <br />a longer period than 10 years, that there is not much of a principal/interest <br />payment difference between 10 years and 15 years. <br /> <br />Mr. Clayton Berg noted that before a certificate of occupancy can be issued, <br />the assessments must be paid in full. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich recommended changing the last sentence under ASSESSMENT <br />PERIOD on Page 5 to read as follows: Assessments for improvements not <br />included as a part of a new development shall be assessed for a period as <br />determined by the City Council. <br /> <br />Question #8: <br /> <br />Refer to Page 6 - Point (a) - size of trunk in an area that <br />will have both commercial and residential development - how <br />is the size of the trunk determined to accommodate both? <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka stated that it would be determined on flow and zoning of the area. <br /> <br />Question #9: Refer to Page 7 - Please explain again REC. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka replied that REC is Residential Equivalent Connection. It would <br />be equal to 3.6 persons, that figure being derived from the Ramsey census. <br />Current one acre lots could be broken down into 2 or 3 rec's depending on <br />frontage. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding lot sizes and REC charges. <br /> <br />Question #10: <br /> <br />Refer to Page 7, #2 lower page - Construction Interest. Please <br />explain. Cost of financing during the time period of the <br />improvement process starting when the amount paid the contractor <br />equals the amount paid as escrow (if any) until the assessment <br />roll is approved by the Council. <br /> <br />Staff replied that City would have to pay the interest on monies expended <br />during construction prior to assessing out the project, therefore, we are <br />proposing to assess that cost to the developer. <br /> <br />Question #11: Refer to Page 7 - #3 - Expenses Assessed - cost incurred by the <br /> City - are they generally a certain %? <br /> <br />The City is charging 5% right now to cover auditing and administrative costs. <br /> <br />Question #12: Please work out the Rate/REC formula referred to on Page 8. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka worked out a sample formula using the formula. <br /> <br />Question #13: <br /> <br />Refer to Page 8 - Sanitary Sewer Lateral - what determines the <br />way it will be assessed and when is choice made to assess one <br />way or the other (assessable front footage or by dividing the <br /> <br />Sp C/March 21, 1983 <br /> Page 4 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.