Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Data stated that Commissioner Heitman would like to convey to the <br />Charter Commission that he feels the City Council should have the option to <br />waive the 60 day waiting period and newsletter publication requirement on 100% <br />petitioned for and assessed projects; the vote to carry this action should be <br />at least by a 4/5 vote. <br /> <br />Chairman Sieber stated that he is reluctant to amend a charter that the people <br />of Ramsey voted in; that Ramsey's charter was patterned after Mounds View's <br />and Mounds View has not dried up and blown away. Chairman Sieber stated that <br />Ramsey now has a tool and efforts should be made to work within that tool <br />rather than modify it. Chairman Sieber stated for exampled, that if <br />newsletter publication dates interfere with a developer's million dollar <br />project, that developer should not mind spending another couple of thousand <br />dollars to have an interim newsletter published. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lichter stated that developers have to go through enough hoops <br />and requiring the publication of a hearing notice for a 100% petitioned for <br />and assessed project in the City newsletter is a senseless waste of time and <br />money. <br /> <br />Mr. Darryl Fults noted that this Charter Commission has been focusing on the <br />major developers and should remember that there are long term residents, such <br />as farmers, that have a vested interest in charter effects on development. <br />Ramsey is subdivided and zoned for development, but with all the stipulations, <br />the developer will purchase land and develop in Ramsey only after he tries <br />other cities that don't have all these added stipulations. Ramsey landholders <br />would have to lower their selling prices in order to remain competitive with <br />other cities. The hoops in the charter do not hurt the major developer, they <br />hurt the long time landholders and residents of Ramsey. <br /> <br />Commissioner Data and Commissioner Lichter stated that they see no point to <br />requiring newsletter publication and 60 day waiting periods on 100% petitioned <br />for and assessed projects. <br /> <br />Commissioner Greenberg referred to Chairman Sieber's comments in the Februrary <br />27, 1985 Charter Commmissionmeeting minutes regarding the fact that he does <br />not believe that any project is totally 100% assessed out. <br /> <br />Chairman Seiber expounded on that February 27, 1985 comment by adding that <br />even though a project is 100% assessed out, some of the costs come back to the <br />City and granted, the City may be deriving some benefits because of revenues <br />generated by that particular improvement. On that basis, there should be some <br />opportunity for the citizens to address even a 100% petitioned for and <br />assessed project. <br /> <br />Mr. Fults pointed out a couple of examples of development that was lost or <br />delayed becuse of City ordinance and charter time frames. <br /> <br />Chairman Sieber stated that persons not directly affected by a project would <br />have difficult procedures, like inititative and referendum, to follow in order <br />to reverse the direction of a project, but should this Commission proceed to <br />take that 60 day window away from the citizens? <br /> <br />Commissioner Lichter pointed out that there are zoning laws and other windows <br /> March 14, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />