Agenda - Council - 10/22/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I '1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I not a retroactive problem in terms of the special assessments. We have not assessed the project so it does not undo any levy already assessed. As advised at the time the Charter provision was submitted, the pr6vision is not manifestly unconstitutional. The City is obligated to follow this Charter provision ias with all other Charter provisions. We have to go forward with the assessment hearings and a deoision can be made at the hearings. There may be issues as to when this project was completed and what's included in this project. Doug Fountain, 15255 Garnet Su:eet NW, Ramsey, inquired how this particular project, if it is not assessed, will affect individual property owners. He had heard numerous figures of what this wii1 cost the other taxpayers. Mr. Goodrich stated that staff has not given out numbers as the hearing has not been held. Mr. Fountain suggested that if the cost is not assessed, it will fall on the other taxpayers. Mr. Goodrich agreed that is one of the funding alternatives and reiterated that an alternative could be to go to the general fund and levy to all the residents in Ramsey. Wayne Olson, 5830 - 151st Lane NW, Ramsey, stated that they made it quite clear when they went out with the petition that the cost of the project is about $95,000. We have approximately 4,500 family dwellings, ~that amount amortized over a 10-year period, comes to about $2 per year per household. Case #22: Development Impact Fees City Administrator Schroeder reported that shortly after the City of Ramsey adopted a Transportation Impact Fee, there was a lawsuit filed in Eagan relating to same which is still under review. While one option would be for the Council to eliminate this fee, he did not believe that was a prudent step to take. He felt when this fee was adopted, there was some real specific projects in mind. rFle felt we should meet with the development community and talk about options relative to the fee and improvements because of the fee; we should take a slower approach rather than to rescind the ,fee. City Attorney Go ,o~lrich stated that the law is really keying in on the issue of specifics - we need to identify where the fee is going, etc. Councilmember Z'~mu'nerman agreed. He felt it's a good program. For example, T.H. #47, the State of Minnesota~has told Ramsey that they will not have any money for improvement. It's up to the City to do that.; He suggested that developers would not balk at this fee as it is not that high. He felt the City should continue on course. He commented on being able to show the courts the specific benefits from this fee. Mr. Schroeder stated that staff has been approached by one developer that is not sure about this fee. He thought that Attorney Goodrich is comfortable that we have identified improvements that would be funded With this fee; however, he was not sure if he (Goodrich) was sure the City would win if it went to court. Mr. Goodrich expressed more concern with the fee on the building permits. Mayor Hardin felt that we should approach this as quickly as possible. Motion by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Beahen to meet with the developers impacted by the transportation impact fee and bring back recommendations therefrom to a future Council meeting. City Council/August 13, 1996 Page 17 of 22