Agenda - Council - 04/26/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I rlJ '<,..,../ I Mr. Schnelle stated that Ramsey does not receive it's fair share of state aids and therefore the City comes up short. Ramsey receiv~s $14jcapita and and the average for other cities comparable to Ramsey is $45-$50jcapita. Until the monies come back to Ramsey fairly, it is difficult to provide the same services as other cities provide. John Lichter requested a definition of "Current Revenue" referred to on Page 15 of the proposed ordinance under Items2>';"b~l, a:"'~l and 4-b":'1. I Mr. Schnelle replied that a Water Enterprise ~und and Sewer Enterp:i:ise Fund will be established and the two funds will be ~elf supporting and money from the General Fund will be on a loan basis. The state allows the City some latitude in setting up accounting but on water you would have to set up a Water Enterprise Fund and on sewer 'you can go back and forth. Mr. Schnelle also stated that there will be a Trunk Fund and the City will be keeping tabELonwhat the Trunk is costing the City. I I 1 Council consensus is make the following changes on Page 15 of the proposed ordinance: Item 2-b-l: Current Revenue generated withiri:Enterprise:Flind. I Item 3-b-l: Current Revenue generated from General Fund. ~I Item 4-b-l: Current Revenues generated within Enterprise Fund. Council consensus is make the following changes on Page 16 of the proposed ordinance: (1 ,1 \. -/ Item l-e: Storm Drainage 1 Item l-f: Municipal Potable I Councilmember Schlueter asked for clarification of term "undue hardship" referred to in the first paragraph on page 17 of the proposed ordinance. I Mr. Raatikka replied that "undue hardship" would include lowlands that would require a lift station to serve one or two lots or an area a developer wants served and it would not be feasible to extend services. Council then discussed Participation Of City, Residential Developments. I 1 Mr. Raatikka explained that the developer would be required to provide a 25% of project cost cash deposit and provide a letter of credit for the remaining amount of the project which would guarantee payment of assessments. The other alternative would be to assess project 100% with developer providing a 150% letter of credit. 1 Mr. Darryl Fults stated that in tal~ing to developers, a 25% or even 35% cash deposit andpe:i::fotmance'bond is workable:but a_letter~o~.~credit-fot.~ the balance of the project cost is unfeasible. I \1' Mr. Berg replied that if a developer goes with a 25% cash deposit he can provide a performance bond, a 150% letter of credit is required when City provides funds for the project. Also suggest that language be included in the ordinance that City has the right to reject or accept performance bond. I sp C/March 28, 1983 Page 10 of 14 / /