 |
| click the image to enlarge and read |
______________UPDATE______________
I attended the session. Few developers showed up.
One banker was there, from Central Bank, which had acquired a number of recently failed community banks. Short of, "You are the bank that acquired a number of failed small banks including the Christian bank in Otsego, how has that worked out? We've been able to keep community banks open," there was no real insight of the views and perspective of the banking community. I wish I had a longer opportunity to talk to the man.
One builder sat down with Heidi Nelson and indicated that if corners could be cut he'd be happier with Ramsey, the conversation going beyond the topsoil depth issue. Whether his points were serious corner cutting or bureaucratic things that could be expedited witout compromising final housing quality and fitness is something I am not able to evaluate, nor did I hear all of the conversation. Same guy suggested that permit fees should be due on issuance of an occupancy permit [for single family and small things, not major plats] not at the time of permit issuance, as that would free builder operating capital for the project itself, while the government would still be paid its fees.
That made sense.
A developer said his concern was, "From the time I present a set of plans to when I can break ground, how can that be shortened and made precise for planning between me and my customer for the commercial project?" That made sense.
It was expressed that builders would favor lower fees, and Ulrich properly responded that fees have to cover staff time and costs, and that made sense.
It was emphasized that a public concern was that if fees were lowered to subsidize builder-developers, the shortfall in money would have to come from the general levy and it would be unfair to and unappreciated by those now living in Ramsey to see their levy rate increased in order to promote growth via subsidizing it.
It was emphasized that staff should prioritize whatever projects promise high-paying quality jobs, in Ramsey, over other things. It was asked whether now, with permit applications backlog not being a factor but with staff downsized would one answer to the time-to-break-ground question be hiring additional staff, and there was no real answer given.
The idea that fees and permit costs should not be lowered to where regular existing residential taxpayers have to pay more to subsidize growth - profligate growth in such a case - is important given that the council for next year's budget has taken the responsible step of raising the levy rate to compensate for loss of state money previously paid back to local government and to compensate for drops in assessed valuation - said to be happening but I have not seen any hard evidence of it.
In any event, the budget process when done right involves the local officials having to determine what services are needed and the likely costs, and then balancing the revenue side; and I view it as responsible for a local government such as City of Ramsey to not be ham-strung by the entirely irresponsible "no new taxes" idiocy and to instead be acting prudently as units of local government should.
It was complete and total BS when there was the chest-pounding a year or two ago about not raising but marginally lowering taxes; and it would be BS to now jump onto a modest tax increase and shout it down as if it were a shameful thing when government governs.
Specific borrow-and-spend things such as subsidizing Flaherty aside, taxing and spending is what government does. It is the very purpose of government.
It is the borrowing for highly questionable things that are of no real use to existing residents [e.g., allegedly upscale high density housing in the failed Ramsey Town Center] that offends.
Noteworthy, Darren and Heidi did a "COR presentation" with none of the developers or builders jumping up to shout, "Wow, that will catalyze my decision of whether or not to buy an available lot two miles north of there and build." I wonder why that was.
Darren did point out that the Armstrong intersection improvements - at Highway 10 - would benefit "the COR" but also the rest of the community [unlike the Flaherty thing]. It was suggested beyond Darren and staff input, that the interchange was very good for the community as a safety consideration and as something builders should note because it, and Sunfish Blvd. improvements making traffic flow less onerous would be factors making newly built housing more attractive to potential purchasers.
The number of foreclosed properties, including those being held by the banks on their books and not presently marketed, was a compelling disincentive to builders, a disincentive to risking new projects. That seemed to be a universal opinion of those attending.
Staff was careful to differentiate between attention required by large plats vs. single residential or small plat proposals - that "builders" require less scrutiny and take less time and cost to process than "developers," in that sense.
McGlone and Elvig were council members present. McGlone suggested the old cliche that more stuff built means a bigger tax base, and wow; but when challenged he was at a loss to say if he had any study definitively saying that costs of providing services do not rise proportionately or at a greater rate than tax base growth. It's a fiction from what I've seen and heard that "rooftop" growth makes things become Nirvana as if manna had dropped from heaven.
Tax base goes up; demand for and costs of services goes up; both grow and the question always left begging an answer is which grows fastest.