Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Wise stated he does not support spending more staff and Council time to discuss <br /> a student project to make recommendations to which the Council would be opposed. He did not <br /> support creating a program for the sake of creating a program or considering environmental <br /> recommendations that are not well received. <br /> Councilmember Strommen noted the EPB is already planning to work on these issues so it will <br /> come before the Council anyway. She stated the EPB is well aware of the Council's position <br /> relative to property rights and it would not behoove anyone to come up with a recommendation <br /> that goes against its vision statement. Councilmember Strommen stated she does not see this <br /> opportunity as taking additional time or creating a new program because it fits into what is <br /> already there. She felt it would be a good opportunity to bring new perspective and create <br /> balance. <br /> City Administrator Ulrich noted that from the student's perspective, the City is the client and part <br /> of working with a client is being told the scope of the project and desired outcomes such as <br /> protection of private property rights, a cost benefit ratio, and to encourage development. <br /> Councilmember McGlone stated his concern that the City maintain its credibility should it not <br /> accept a recommendation from the U of M. He noted some Councilmembers want to look at the <br /> City's development costs because they think the costs are too high, resulting in loss of new <br /> development. However, he is leery about authorizing recommendations that could result in the <br /> City not appearing as credible. <br /> Councilmember Backous felt City Administrator Ulrich had summed it up well, that the Council <br /> can lay out the scope of work it wants done. He noted the EPB is advisory and he would like to <br /> get away from the current policy of telling them what to advise the Council on. <br /> Senior Planner Gladhill explained staff has presented initial findings on development costs and is <br /> refining those findings. <br /> Councilmember McGlone stated he thought the Council was going to have a charette and invite <br /> the development community to get their input, which has not yet been done. <br /> Senior Planner Gladhill explained staff had prepared some recommendations on development <br /> fees and is working to schedule an open house at some point. This issue remains in progress. <br /> Councilmember Tossey stated he also wants to be cautious and is worried that some <br /> recommendations by students could deter or be cost prohibitive for potential development within <br /> the City. He noted the Council wants to make things easier for property owners so he is <br /> concerned that a recommendation may not mesh well with what Ramsey supports. <br /> Ms. Coleman felt it would be a great discipline if students were invited to work with Ramsey to <br /> prove the cost and benefits of their recommendations. She noted this would force students to <br /> narrow the number of recommendations they might include and to look at cost realities. Ms. <br /> Colman stated they did this with Rice County, who was considering whether they should allow <br /> City Council Work Session / October 18, 2011 <br /> Page 3 of 11 <br />