Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson summarized that in January 2008 there was a request for <br />the City Council to adopt a resolution of support for seeking technical and financial assistance <br />with researching a possible open space referendum. He explained that resolution failed and the <br />Council stated that there was a process that citizens could follow that would not involve the City <br />Council. He advised that the City Attorney reviewed that option and determined that a petition is <br />not a viable option per the City's Charter. He explained that a private citizen had requested that <br />the assistance request submitted by the City to Embrace Open Space be transferred into their <br />name to have the feasibility study completed. He reported that that request was approved and <br />that the feasibility study was initiated in May and the citizen would like to present the Board <br />with those results. <br /> <br />Board Member Sibilski addressed the Board as a private citizen and advised that he did bring this <br />item to the Board for discussion, as it is an item that is included on their City Council approved <br />work plan for 2008, and therefore it is within the rights of the Board to hold the discussion. He <br />stated that after the City Council denied the request for the feasibility study, he and a few other <br />residents requested the feasibility study to occur under their names instead of the City of <br />Ramsey. He advised that the request was approved and explained that after having discussions <br />with Embrace Open Space he asked questions of the City that any resident could receive the <br />answers to. He advised that there are still a few minor changes to be made to the results ofthe <br />feasibility study and reported that it should be completed within the next week. He explained <br />that as a resident he was present at the meeting to request that the results of the feasibility study <br />be moved for discussion with the City Council. He stated that if the Board agrees and makes the <br />motion he would likejt added to the Council agenda in early July. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Miller questioned what information would be added to the <br />report. <br /> <br />Board Member Sibilski explained that the Trust for Public Land just wanted to clarify a few <br />things within the report. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Miller stated that on the third page it currently read that <br />proceeds from the general bond would not be used for ongoing maintenance. She advised that <br />the City Council would want to know where the funding would come from for the ongoing <br />maintenance, as that is a long term concern. <br /> <br />City Council Liaison Strommen was unsure if that information would fall within the scope of the <br />feasibility study but agreed that information should also be presented to the City Council when <br />the discussion takes place. <br /> <br />Acting Chairperson Max questioned if a focus group was held. <br /> <br />Board Member Sibilski advised that they did not yet hold a focus group for this issue. <br /> <br />City Council Liaison Strommen replied that the feasibility study was strictly done to look at the <br />fiscal capacity of the City to determine ifthis could happen in the City. She explained that <br />another city has high land prices and a low population, which meant that an open space <br />referendum would not work due to the lack oftax capacity. She explained that the second issue <br />that is reviewed is willingness. <br /> <br />Environmental Policy Board / June 17,2008 <br />Page 2 of8 <br />