Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Goodrich - Only developer must deposit in escrow in order to guarantee <br />payment of assessments. <br /> <br />Roger Buchanan - The second connection was changed from 1984 to 1983, it <br />seems City is not forestalling but speeding up the coming of utilities. <br />Early on in the Comprehensive plan we are already making changes, why should <br />citizens believe you when you say we won't see sewer and water until the <br />year 2000. I see acceleration rather than holding off. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka - City has been pursuing the second connection for the past 5 <br />years and we were told by Metro Council and Waste Control that 1984 was the <br />earliest it would be available to Ramsey. In January of 1983, Metro Council <br />stated they would install the interceptor as soon as the City has a need <br />and there are developers waiting and a petition has been submitted, so the <br />City has to amend the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich - We can tell you what the Comprehensive Plan says, we cannot <br />tell you that Council cannot either extend or decrease dates. <br /> <br />Roger Buchanan - Could revenues potentially gained be considered a "need"? <br /> <br />Mr. Schnelle - "Absolutely not"! If a project is failing, we would not <br />advance utilities and it would be ridiculous to do so. If the City would <br />advance into a developed residential area, the City would not have the same <br />guarantee as in an undeveloped area because of the commitment we get from <br />the developer. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich - Developer provides 25% cash deposit and letter of credit for <br />the remainding 75% of the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Renner - Are developers going to be allowed to skip around? <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich - Developer could petition but he would have to pay 100% of the <br />cost of extending and when properties inbetween desire the system, the <br />original developer will be reimbursed. <br /> <br />Mr. Renner - Isn't the City inviting urban sprawl? <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka - Intent is to limit developments to the 1990 urban areas we <br />would not extend beyond that area, even if petitioned for. <br /> <br />Mr. Schnelle - The only place where this could happen is along Hwy. 10 and <br />the City would not allow the developer to develop a piece of property if <br />it would endanger 3 or 4 small property owners. <br /> <br />Tom Patchen Regarding using land as collateral, couldn't the City become <br />a real estate broker? <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich - It is a possibility, but trunk extension will have to be with <br />actual cash. <br /> <br />Tom Patchen - If extension of trunk to undeveloped land crosses sparcely <br />developed land, when would assessment be made to those existing homeowners? <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich When they actually hook up to the system. <br /> <br />Utility Information Meeting <br /> April 19, 1983 <br /> Page 8 of 11 <br /> <br /> <br />