Laserfiche WebLink
CASE # <br /> <br />REVIEW IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PETITION PROCESS <br /> By: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />At a recent meeting, Council discussed the impact of petitioned-for urban services upon <br />existing rural Subdivisions or households. During this discussion, one member suggested <br />that perhaps a 'greater percentage than 50% ought to be required to initiate urban services. <br />As a result of this, I am bringing the item to the Commission for discussion. <br /> <br />Currently, the ~public improvement process (whether for urban or rural services) in Ramsey <br />is already somewhat more rigorous than is required under State Statute. This process is <br />outlined in the attached flow chart. Briefly, our current process mandates that 51% of <br />benefitted properties can petition against a project and automatically stop that project for a <br />one-year periOd regardless of the merits of the project. This does not vary by type of <br />project. <br /> <br />This issue came up because of the impact upon the existing Haubrich Addition by the new <br />Fox Knoll Addition. After the infrastructure was approved for the new housing, <br />development Owners of three properties in Haubrich (of six total) petitioned for urban <br />services as well. The neighbors objected to the improvements which would result in <br />significant asSessments but they could not outvote the petitioners (in that they could achieve <br />only 50%, not 51%). <br /> <br />Similar situations to the above have the potential to be quite common. For instance, <br />recently the Council awarded the paving of Bison Street north of 171st Avenue after a <br />petition from 50% of benefitted properties. At least twice each year the City receives a <br />petition for public improvements of some sort within existing development (and of course <br />many more in new development areas). <br /> <br />There seem to be two readily apparent issues to be examined here. They are: <br /> <br />Does the Commission have an interest in making it more difficult than at <br />present to provide for public improvements in this community; and <br /> <br />Would a more conservative development policy on petitioned for projects <br />result in an inappropriate weight given to either side of the issue? <br /> <br />Commission Action: <br /> <br />Based on Discussion. <br /> <br />Reviewed by: <br /> <br />City Administrator <br /> <br />Charter: 11/30/95 <br /> <br /> <br />