Laserfiche WebLink
4. P~view Of City Administrator Schnelle's Concerns Regarding Chapter 8 <br /> <br />Mr. Schnelle referred to Section 8.05.02 and posed an example of development <br />including city-owned property and entitling it to an assessment which is <br />paid for by the general public; could the public come in under Section 8°05.02 <br />and stop the project on the basis of general public benefit? <br /> <br />Commissioner Sieber replied that yes, the citizens could get a 51% petition and <br />stop the project. <br /> <br />Chairman Heitman inquired as to what the State does now? <br /> <br />Mr. Schnelle replied that right now the State doesn't deal with that because <br />it is a major policy issue that courts resolve. <br /> <br />Commissioner Data stated that the intent of this Section is to give the citizens <br />a voice on something that would impact their tax role and still avoid a special <br />election. <br /> <br />Commissioner Gamec stated that he has done some research and some cities have <br />chosen to go with allowing up to 20% of the project cost being assessed to <br />the city; that the city will most certainly be able to prove that much benefit. <br /> <br />Chairman Heitman stated that 20% of a project cost would not be so bad it that <br />included the total package -- maintenance and operation of the system. <br /> <br />Commissioner Gamec replied that the orginal assessment would cover installation <br />and the service charge will cover operation of the system. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sieber summarized the problem with this section as being 'do we <br />really want the project susceptible to petition if there is any City <br />involvement?' <br /> <br />Commissioner Bauerkemper noted that it would be very difficult to obtain <br />signatures from 51% of the registered voters in Ramsey in order to stop the <br />project. <br /> <br />Mr. Jack Ippel - 16443 Jasper - There are going to have to be costs incurred <br />by the City in order to bring in development. <br /> <br />Commissioner Gamec suggested that in Section 8.05.02, the 60 day waiting <br />period be changed to 45 days. <br /> <br />Commissioner Data inquired if the charter is delaying a developer and causing <br />him additional expense. <br /> <br />Chairman Heitman inquired if accomodating the developer would sacrifice citizen <br />rights. <br /> <br />Mr. Fults stated that the charter would present even more delays to a developer <br />than he already encounters in the City. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bauerkemper pointed out that even after zoning is granted, Council <br />can still stop the present PUD plans for Flintwood II; it is not the charter <br />presenting the roadblocks that are already here. <br /> <br />CC/February 23, 1984 <br />Page 7 of 11 <br /> <br /> <br />