Laserfiche WebLink
inspecti s a!~d felt it showed his company is not the company it is portrayed to be. He <br />stated h~ ~ou,ld work with the City if the City will just communicate what it wants. <br /> <br />Jerry Matt. ~n,! Business owner, Gateway North Industrial Park, stated that medlanon <br />betweed/'he City of Ramsey and Mr. Karst has already taken place and it would be <br />inappro~atelto have more mediation sessions. He stated he'd be happy to discuss with <br />the City~ 4~r ~hoever, the direction the Industrial Park should go but he is not in favor of <br />attend~nlg ~epgrate med~auon sessions pertmmng to Mr. Karst s company only. He, too, <br />added thltl Ma- ' Karst has made some improvements but he felt it could have been taken care <br />of before.IHS. expressed his hope that the City takes responsibility and continues with the <br />revocatiO4 pr,/ccess of Mr. Karst's CUP. <br />Art BulO~v, 1~065 Xerxes Street, Elk River - stated he sold some property in 1989 on <br />Front Sll'ffet N.W. At that time there was no building on the property but the purchaser has <br />since buil~ a Ijouse. At the time of his building permit, he was supposed to be charged a <br />SAC ch~e;however, the fee was not added to his building permit. He (purchaser) was <br />billed for~t later. Mr. Bulow stated that the purchaser took him to conciliation court on <br />Decembe~ 10j 1992 because he felt it was ,his (Mr. Bulow's) responsibility to pay this SAC <br />charge...~,~e O~ourt judged in the purchaser s favor. Mr. Bulow believes that a resolution he <br />had rec~¥ed [t copy of stated that the fee would be paid by the landowner at the time of <br />hook upb [Mr~Bulow stated he paid all his assessments when the property was divided by <br />the CityiO~f R~msey, Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Highway Department. He <br />inquirec~i~hyihis SAC charge was not taken care of at the City level instead of him ending <br />up beingitak$n to court. The amount is $1,322.00. He thought he could appeal the <br />decisiorr l~ut ~ would cost as much in attorney's fees as the SAC charge. He added that it <br />should b¢lup ~o the City to rectify this situation. <br />Councilmi~mber Peterson stated that the correct property owner was billed by the City. He <br />added tfi~t th~ City would provide Mr. Bulow with as much public documentation as <br />possiblei ~ut &at is about the extent of what the City can do. <br /> <br />Mr. Bu quired why he should incur the expense of hiring an attorney when this <br />problem'~ould have been taken care of in 1989. <br />City Atto~e¥ Goodrich stated this is an issue between Mr. Bulow and his purchaser. The <br />City has' ~o cOntrol over what a conciliation court decides. <br />APPRO*E ~AoENDA <br />Motion b~ C~uncilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman to <br />approve~e a~enda with the following addition: <br />Case /~i '-Discussion pertaining to Labor Relations (Closed) <br />Motion ~:~trri~d. Voting Yes: Mayor Gilbertson, Councilmembers Peterson, Zimme~an, <br />Beyer and H~din. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />CONSEI~T :AGENDA <br />With regard t~ Consent Agenda Item #8: R~ceive memorandum regarding Consideration of <br />towing B!d ~ward, M~. Lou Flessner, North Star Towing, was present to speak on behalf <br />of his co~npa~y and to summarize what his company has to offer. He asked that Chief <br />Auspos k %n~ider his recommendation to go with Duane% Towing. <br /> <br />City <br /> <br />Council/December 22, 1992 <br /> Page 3 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />