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 />