My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council Work Session - 08/31/2010
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council Work Session
>
2010
>
Minutes - Council Work Session - 08/31/2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2025 1:46:53 PM
Creation date
2/8/2011 1:58:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council Work Session
Document Date
08/31/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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).
View images
View plain text
Councilmember Wise expressed his agreement with Mayor Ramsey and Councilmember <br />McGlone. <br />Councilmember Elvig stated he would rather see us fix the problem than skirt the whole issue of <br />rental. <br />Councilmember Look stated he feels municipalities have gone overboard on this. This is a <br />recent ordinance that municipalities have adopted and they run into a fair amount of legal <br />problems because of it. Going back before rental licenses — communities did not have the <br />problems like we have now; Municipalities have found this as a revenue - generating source. <br />Councilmember Dehen stated he thought the reason we created the rental licensing was to get <br />back on bad landlords; not all landlords are bad We have the licensing to issue, which would be <br />bargaining power between landlords and tenants so problems can be rectified. <br />Councilmember Look stated that Councilmember Dehen is saying that landlords that do not <br />make properties inhabitable need to be stopped. Should families that make their homes <br />uninhabitable be stopped too? He stated he did not want to get into the owner /occupied deal. <br />Ms. Miller asked, for clarification, we should reintroduce the ordinance excluding everything but <br />apartment buildings — and gave the definition of apartment buildings. <br />Councilmember Dehen stated that since some of us are not remaining on the Council, maybe this <br />decision should be left for the new Council. <br />Consensus was to reintroduce the ordinance excluding everything but apartment buildings. <br />Councilmember Jeffrey left, as did Fire Chief Kapler. <br />2) Consideration of New Park and Recreation Fee Structure for Residential Properties <br />Planning Manager Miller stated that staff has been told that some of our development fees are <br />too high; therefore, we looked at what area communities are charging. The proposed project <br />consisted of 120 residential units, the SAC is discounted to 99 units (based on density) and the <br />acreage is two acres. She presented a table showing the rates charged by several communities — <br />park dedication — trail fees, etc. Ramsey's fee is $2,475. The highest fee is Maple Grove at <br />$5,455. The lowest is Coon Rapids at $1,360. It appears Ramsey is pretty comparable. <br />However, only two other communities on the list also charged a trail fee - Andover and Rogers. <br />The lack of flexibility regarding development type, staff believes needs to be addressed first. For <br />example, a 120 unit apartment building is assessed a per unit fee regardless of what type of <br />development it is. Staff recommends considering a different fee structure for assisted living <br />facilities. The residents typically have a much - reduced demand for park and recreation facilities <br />and some other communities have charged them on a commercial basis. Staff recommends <br />making this change to the City's fee schedule for assisted living facilities. Ms. Miller continued <br />that in higher density developments, either 12 units an acre or higher or 20 units an acre of <br />City Council Work Session / August 31, 2010 <br />Page 4 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.