My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1997/07/07
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
Agenda Packets - 1997/07/07
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:48:50 PM
Creation date
6/29/2018 5:11:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
7/7/1997
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
7/7/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
71
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
r Item No. 110 <br /> Staff Report No. <br /> 1110 <br /> Meeting Date: July 7, 1997 <br /> Type of Business: Work Session <br /> WK: WorkSession;PH:Public Hearing; <br /> CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business <br /> City of Mounds View Staff Report <br /> To: Mayor and City Council <br /> From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director <br /> Item Title/Subject: Discussion of Policy on Requiring Surety . <br /> Date of Report: July 5, 1997 <br /> Issue: <br /> Staff has prepared a suggested policy and some ordinance changes on requiring surety for certain <br /> types of development projects, and to guarantee compliance with conditions of approval. <br /> Background: <br /> At the last City Council meeting, there was some discussion on whether to require surety from <br /> homeowners who have requested approvals from the City, to assure that the conditions of <br /> approval are met. The particular case in point was a request for a conditional use permit to <br /> construct an oversized garage, which also involved the removal of an existing driveway, the <br /> paving of the new driveway, and the removal of a shed from the property. Staff original <br /> • recommendation was to require the applicant to furnish a check to the City for $1,000, which <br /> would be held and returned upon completion of the work, to assure that these three items were. <br /> done. The homeowner objected to tying up this amount of money. There was also some <br /> discussion about whether the homeowner could obtain a surety bond or a letter of credit, in lieu of <br /> providing the check. <br /> Since then staff has done some research on the availability and cost of various forms of surety, in <br /> order to develop alternatives for the City Council to consider. In addition, we have resurrected an <br /> ordinance amendment from August, 1996 which has been waiting for attention, that is also related <br /> to this issue, and we are suggesting that a new section be added to the Subdivision Regulations to <br /> address surety as well. <br /> Discussion: <br /> • How Surety Works <br /> Staff spoke with Fidelity Bank and Western Bank, and with the Fairfield Company which offers <br /> surety and performance bonds to learn what types of surety are available and the costs involved. <br /> We wanted to know how difficult and expensive it is to get various types of surety for both <br /> developers and for homeowners, such as the homeowner who wants to build an oversized garage <br /> and needs to remove a shed. <br /> Companies providing surety and performance bonds are in effect guaranteeing that they will pay <br /> 41, <br /> for the improvements if their client defaults. So they require their applicants to provide financial <br /> statements and a credit report, and evidence that the money for the work exists and is being held <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.