FORECLOSURE: In an earlier post I suggested assessements against Town Center in arrears might be foreclosed, and such a step would be wise. In a second post, I suggested that nine million dollars might have been more wisely spent on road improvements.
Consider this a correction or qualification of the first posting. But I stand on the second one, that money was unwisely spent because fixing the traffic mess first is the better policy. It is bad policy to allow growth to worsen the traffic, and then trying to play catch up (to where we'd been before the growth worsened things). There is no reason to change that opinion.
On the question of a special assessment lien against property; if there is no current arrearage there is no right to foreclose. I post about this to avoid misunderstanding.
I have been told that special assessments may be paid over a period of years. They do not need to be paid in the year assessed, as is the case for regular real property taxes.
If Town Center developers are current then the City lacks a right or power to foreclose. I want to make that correction clear.
So, if there is a three million dollar letter of credit and a nine million dollar assessment against the entire property [except where deed releases apply for developed parts of the entire property such as Coburns], and that amount equals the total cost of City paid infrastructure - i.e., if the internal roadways and storm and sanitary sewer, water, and undergrounded electric and other utilities were installed and adjacent highway improvement assessments (if any) were all properly levied and the full total present exposure is at or less than $12 million (the constant $3 million letter of credit plus the liens) and the assessments stand in a first lien position ahead of mortgage lending, then security is sufficient.
However, if and when a tax arrearage triggers maturity of a right and power to forclose a lein, I still contend that foreclosing promptly in such an instance would be wisest.
Not knowing the lien status or the City's accrued rights to foreclose, if any, I presume things are now properly handled by the City.
Yet, if elected I would examine the books to confirm proper handling and to see if improprieties of any kind are apparent.
DEBT CEILING CONCERNS: Moreover, as a separate matter, I remain entirely unaware of any authority City Lobbyist Balach had to seek to have the debt limit taxpayers face raised, because nobody has yet given me notice of any council resolution or ordinance passed to authorize the City to approach the legislature during the last legislative session for a debt ceiling change.
See, Ramsey City Charter, Sect. 7.1 "Council to Control Finances." See also, the balance of Charter Chap. 7.
I renew my request for a person to come forward having information or contending Balach's lobbying was properly pre-authorized [i.e., conforming to Charter Chapter 3 setting "Council Procedures" requiring the City to act via resolutions or ordinances; see also, Charter Sections 6.1 and 6.3 indicating the City Administrator only has derivative, not inate power].
Any reader believing Balach was authorized to lobby for a debt ceiling increase as she did is again asked to post a comment explaining the basis for such thinking. I renew my previous request this way, and so far nobody has contacted me saying I am in error in any of my debt ceiling analysis.
Moreover, what offends me most - as with moving City Hall at great cost - this debt ceiling raise should have been put to a Referendum first, for voter approval.
Without citizens wanting it, neither the City Hall move nor the debt ceiling effort should have advanced.
It is your city and you can take back control. Make this election your "Referendum" for change.