Laserfiche WebLink
to the City Attorney's interpretation of the Charter, once the petition is <br />sutmitted to City Council, there is no longer the opportunity for affected <br />property (~ners to revise their orgi. nal position indicated on the petition. <br />The (~arter also says that when an Improvement is petitioned against by more <br />than 50% of the affected property owners, Council cannot vote on the <br />improvement for a period of one year. City Attorney Goodrich's memo dated <br />January 6, 1987 defines two options for Council consideration: 1) Drop the <br />improvement project entirely; 2) Amend the scope of the project so that it is <br />no longer the same improvement and start a new improvement project. Such an <br />amendment is necessary even if the Council chooses to finance the project under <br />Chapter 444 of Minnesota Statutes. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley suggested that the Economic Development Commission take this <br />opportunity to reflect on what they would like to see happen in Ramsey, decide <br />if municipal sewer and water fits into those plans and then decide how to <br />appropriately use city funds to make those things happen. <br /> <br />The Co~mission briefly discussed those existing companies relying on future <br />installation of municipal utilities for their continued operation in Ramsey and <br />the interest expressed by property owners on the south side of Hwy. ~10 in <br />municipal utilities. <br /> <br />Chairman Greenberg inquired if there will be tax increment money available in <br />the future if such a project were approved at that time. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley replied that powerful legislators are attempting to make changes to <br />tax increment laws and how those changes will affect Ramsey cannot be <br />predicted; the City can only count on having tax increment as a resource until <br />August 1, 1987. For Ramsey to take advantage of tax increment financing, the <br />bonds would have to be sold by August 1. <br /> <br />Cc~missioner Vevea stated that he was one of the two persons that circulated <br />the petiion and most of the opposition is based on the fact that the project <br />is not complete; over half of the people will not be able to hook-up to what <br />they are being assessed for until laterals are installed, which would involve <br />additional assessments. Many of those opposing the project might have had a <br />different view of it had it been a total system including laterals. The City <br />can't expect property owners to pay for something they aren't able to use. <br /> <br />C~mm~issioner Fults stated that he doesn't know of any city in the State that <br />can afford to construct complete sewer and water systems and still offer <br />property ~ners the option to defer assess~m_nts for many years. <br /> <br />Chairman Greenberg stated that the pipe installation was routed along Azurite <br />rather than Sunfish Blvd. because that area was more condusive to the <br />construction and because of that a proposal was worked out whereby those <br />property owners would not be charged for the system until they needed the <br />services and hooked up to them. All the City was looking for was use of <br />Azurite Street to get the services to those properties needing them. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley advised the Commission that upon receiving the petition, those <br />carrying the petition indicated that their major concern was lack of laterals <br />and had their been sufficient time to negotiate with the City various aspects <br />EDC/January 5, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />