Minutes - Council - 03/08/2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Motion carried. Voting Yes: Acting Mayor Pro Tern Riley, Councilmembers Kuzma, Shryock, Johns, and Williams. Voting No: None. Absent: Mayor Strommen and Councilmember LeToumeau. 7.05: Review DRAFT 2016 City of Ramsey Resident Survey Asst. City Administrator/Economic Development Manager Brama reviewed the staff report .noting that this is a continuation from the discussion at the February 23, 2016 meeting with the intent to obtain additional input from the Council on the questions for the 2016 City of Ramsey resident survey. Acting Mayor Pro Tem Riley referenced a question regarding assessment and asked if that figure should be updated to reflect the current assessment rate in the policy. City Engineer Westby stated that the special assessment policy for Chapter 429 street reconstruction and overlay projects is 25 percent. He noted that the question could be applicable to another type of assessment and noted that 20 percent is the rate identified through road bonding in general and may not relate to reconstruction. Asst. City Administrator/Economic Development Manager Brama read the question aloud, which states 20 percent or more. City Engineer Westby clarified that the special assessment policy would be to assess 25 percent of street reconstruction projects and would apply as read and therefore should be updated in the survey. Councilmember Kuzma noted the reference to a franchise fee and stated that the policy is currently to assess projects and did not want to confuse residents into thinking that franchise fees would be an option. He noted that the five-year bonding bill was taken out and thought that the question was misleading. Councilmember Shryock stated that she has a concern with that question being included in the survey as well, noting that the assessment policy was just approved and only enacted on two road projects. She believed that including the question would make residents believe that the option was available and would not be fair to those already assessed. She noted that perhaps the question could be asked further down the road. Councilmember Johns disagreed and noted that the intent in including the question was to provide a timeline and comparison to whether the opinion of residents changes as more people are assessed for road improvements. She therefore thought that it was important to leave that question in and ask it over the years. Councilmember Williams noted that this topic will be one of the largest topics included in the budget discussions over the next several years and therefore believed that it would be important to keep the question in and capture the opinion of residents over time. City Council / March 8, 2016 Page 6 of 8