Laserfiche WebLink
CHARTER COMMISSION <br />CITY OF RAMSEY <br />ANOKA COUNTY <br /> STATE OF MINNESOTA <br /> <br />The RamseY Charter Commission conducted a regular meeting on Thursday, November <br />30, 1995, ia the Fire Department meeting room, lower level of Ramsey City Hall, 15153 <br />Nowthen Btmlevard NW, Ramsey, Minnesota. <br /> <br />Members P~sent: <br /> <br />Members Absent: <br /> <br />Chairperson Bernard Steffen <br />Commissioner Dennis Donovan <br />Commissioner Keith Kiefer <br />Commissioner Richard Netzloff <br />Commissioner Virginia Spain-Brist (arrived approximately 8:05 pm) <br /> <br />Commissioner Judy Marn <br />Commissioner Jay Swokowski <br /> <br />Also Present: City Adminiswator Ryan Schroeder <br /> <br />COMMISSION BUSINESS <br /> <br />There wasgo quorum present at 7:30 p.m. Chairperson Steffen asked for a discussion of <br />Case #2 ar~d stated he would call the meeting to order as soon as there was a quorum <br />present. <br /> <br />Discussion of Case #2: Review Improvement Project Petition Process <br /> <br />City Admiriistmtor Schroeder noted that the history of the petition process is included in the <br />Charter C~mmission agenda. He explained that if residents petition for a public <br />improvem~t, the City conducts a feasibility study. After the study is completed, the <br />benefitted ~roperty owners are notified. Those opposed can then petition against the <br />project. If greater than 50% of the property owners petition against it, the project is over. <br />If less th~ 50% petition against, City Council can go forward, with the project. For <br />example, ~ox Knoll is a new subdivision and along with the creation of such came the <br />oppormni~ for an existing subdivision to have City water and sewer. Three of the six <br />property o ,wners petitioned for the project and that left three against. Three out of the six is <br />not greater[than 50% so the City Council had to decide whether the project is a go or not. <br />They chos~ to vote in favor of the project for several reasons. One was the City was <br />putting water in the boulevard of that street anyway and second, the feeling of the majority <br />of the Cot ncil was that if the project did not go forward at this point, another petition <br />would be brought forward the next year. Upon approval of this project, one of the <br />Councilm{ tubers suggested maybe we should change the balance of the voting. Mr. <br />Schroeder added that we have a similar situation on the paving of Bison Street - three <br />affected p)operty owners for and three against the project. City Council voted to go <br />forward on that projec[ as well. He added that if the Charter does suggest a change from <br />50/50, we Ishould discuss if there's a difference between pipe and pavement projects and <br />how you ~ould differentiate. "If I was in the subdivision, regardless of what side of <br />discussionlI was on, if my side was required to have more votes, I am not sure how I <br />would feelS, about that". <br /> <br />ChairpersOn Steffen questioned what is the equity of changing the percentage. How do <br />you justif~ 60% to proceed or 60% to protest? If it's even, then Council would just have to <br />decide what's best for the City - dollar and otherwise. In the case of the two subdivisions, <br /> <br />Charter Commission/November 30, <br /> Page 1 of 6 <br /> <br />1995 <br /> <br /> <br />