Laserfiche WebLink
· Parcels that serve to benefit county and/or state transportation <br /> improvement projects. <br />· Parcels that serve city utility or other improvement purposes - where city <br /> improvements are necessary, and that benefit the residents and/or <br /> community as a whole as part of municipality responsibilities. <br />· Parcels where no relocation benefits are needed or apply- such as <br /> leaseback scenarios. <br />° Parcels with minimal structure removal and/or clearing expenses - in an <br /> effort to minimize maintenance and/or demolition expenses. <br /> <br />It is important to note that these items are generic and each acquisition should be <br />assessed on a case-by-case basis as variables associated with each property <br />will differ. <br /> <br />City staff is in the process of researching and developing other creative, interim <br />financing techniques that could be applied in certain instances where it is in the <br />best interest of the City to acquire a property, but RALF and/or relocation funds <br />are not available. As an example, the City of Ramsey may pay relocation costs <br />upfront with the agreement and understanding that Mn/DOT would pay back <br />those dollars in future years and as part of an allocated budget. <br /> <br />It may also make sense in some instances for the City to directly purchase a <br />property from a willing seller who is interested in leasing the existing building <br />back from the City over a period of time. In this instance, it may be possible for <br />the City to "cash flow" on lease revenues, while allowing the property owner to <br />continue operating his/her business and generate income as well. Under this <br />same leaseback scenario using RALF funds to purchase the property, all excess <br />revenues must be returned back into the loan program. In addition, if a property <br />is purchased by the City and a leaseback agreement is arranged, relocation <br />costs would not be an issue upfront, and would likely be deferred to the future. <br /> <br />'These and other options are being assessed at this time, as are the potential <br />liabilities and risks the City should be aware of. Initial feedback from Mn/DOT <br />and the Met Council regarding an agreement or understanding as described <br />above have been positive thus far, and they are interested in meeting to discuss <br />further ideas and details when the City is prepared to do so. <br /> <br /> <br />