1995 Working Papers - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

projected to be relocated with the proposed alignment, but the National Propane facility alternatively was assumed to be potentially scheduled for relocation. As a point of reference, the National Propane has a tax value of $81,200, compared to $171,800 of total value for the Skelgas facility. The improvements to the National Propane facility account for $48,300 of the total value, compared to $126,900 for the Skelgas facility. The memorandum did not portend to provide appraisals of acquisitions, but only points of reference using tax records and knowledge of an acquisition professional. It was not expected that increased expenditure accuracy would be required of conceptual alignments. Mr. Deemer's Memo dated May 19. 1995 As Mr. Deemer states in his memo, he raises a number of issues regarding the recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan update. Based upon issues raised and the factual information available, I will respond as follows to his concerns: 1) Presentation of the consultants for the Comprehensive Plan update were introduced at the December 7, 1993 meeting by Zoning Administrator Frolik. Since no documents were presented at that meeting, it is difficult to ascertain the document to which Mr. Deemer is referring. 2) At the joint meeting of July 6, 1994, the plan known as Figure 7 A was developed by City Staff and consultants, based upon the Planning Commission's transportational skeleton from Figure 7 and land uses that would work in conjunction with that plan. The consensus of the members present was to update the Planning Commission with information concerning their (City Council and EDC) review of the issues at the September 6, 1994 meeting. At the September 6, 1994 meeting, the EDC presented the land uses suggestions using the transportation skeleton of Figure 5 from the materials distributed at the July 6, 1994 meeting. 3) My statement was that I believe that the City Council was waiting for a recommendation from the EDC and the Planning Commission, even if the Commissions are not in agreement, and that we may have to go to the City Council with the land uses and two views on road options. This statement was later reiterated by Commission members Holland and Marquart. Both Commissions have subsequently submitted their plans and City Council made the final decision. 4) As previously stated, the plan that was recommended by the EDC was based upon Figure 5 which was presented by the Planning Commission at the July 6, 1994 meeting. The EDC's primary objective, according to City Code, is to further the economic development of Ramsey and vicinity, to aid, assist, and promote growth expansion and development of business concerns in said area, and, thereby, to contribute to the economic well-being of the area as measured by increased employment, payroll, business volume, tax base and corresponding factors. The future development of the City would clearly fall into this category . Based upon this review of the materials that have been provided by the Planning Commission subcommittee members, it would appear that misinterpretation of certain pieces of information has led those involved in the development of the Comprehensive Plan to draw incorrect assumptions. These incorrect assumptions then led to other details becoming more significant than they would normally be at this point of the plan development. This has in turn led to an inability of the various groups to come to a consensus on the suggested plan update. Did the EDC add time to the development of the plan update? Probably yes, however, their recommendation was submitted within the same timeline as the Planning Commission's recommendation, and so it did not add a significant amount to the cost of the update.