03/06/84 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4. P~viewiOf ~it~ Administrator Schnelle's Concerns Re~ardin~ Cha~ter 8 Mr. Schnelle r~ferred to Section 8.05.02 and posed an example of development including ~ity~owned property and entitling it to an assessment which is paid for by th~ general public; could the public come in under Section 8.05.02 and stop the project on the basis of general public benefit? Commissioner S~eber replied that yes, the citizens could get a 51% petition and stop the P~oje~t. Chairman Heitman inquired as to what the State does now? Mr. Schnelle replied that right now the State doesn't deal with that because it is a major ~Olicy issue that courts resolve. CommissiOner Data stated that the intent of this Section is to give the citizens a voice on something that would impact their tax role and still avoid a special election. Commissioner Gamec stated that he has done some research and some cities have chosen t© go With allowing up to 20% of the project cost being assessed to the city; that the city will most certainly be able to prove that much benefit. Chairman Heitman stated that 20% of a project cost would not be so bad it that included the total package -- maintenance and operation of the system. commissioner Gamec replied that the orginal assessment would cover installation and the servioe charge will cover operation of the system. Commissioner 'Sieber summarized the problem with this section as being 'do we really w~nt the project susceptible to petition if there is any City involvement?' Commissioner~auerkemper noted that it would be very difficult to obtain signatures frOm 51% of the registered voters in Ramsey in order to stop the project. Mr. Jack Ippei - 16443 Jasper - There are going to have to be costs incurred by the City in order to bring in development. CommissiOner Gamec suggested that in Section 8.05.02, the 60 day waiting period be changed to 45 days. Commissioner Data inquired if the charter is delaying a developer and causing him additional expense. Chairman Heitman inquired if accomodating the developer would sacrifice citizen rights. Mr. Fults ~stated that the charter would present even more delays to a developer than he already encounters in the City. Commissioner Bauerkemperpointed out that even after zoning is granted, Council can still~st°P the present PUD plans for Flintwood II; it is not the charter presenting the roadblocks that are already here. CC/February 23, 1984 Page 7 of 11