Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. McCarty - 80% of Mounds View was developed, our comprehensive plan had <br />been adopted and we had metro funding for sewer trunk lines. <br /> <br />Commissioner Gamec stated that a lot of Mounds View's public improvement <br />problems were solved before they went charter. <br /> <br />Mr. Loeding stated that was not really true; Mounds View was threatended with <br />redevelopment, there was a lot of pressure to double the density because of <br />the large lots. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. McCarty - Mounds View was in a position where an exhuberant council could <br />double the density. By going charter, we prevented that but a charter will <br />not pre-empt health, safety and welfare of residents. Our problem is solved <br />for the time being, all problems do not end with charter adoption. <br /> <br />Mr. Doty - We did cost benefit studies comparing developed land and undeveloped <br />land and found that development is not always good from the city's standpoint. <br /> <br />Commissioner Greenberg referred to the long term plan and stated that the city <br />would not be able to do anything that is not included in the current year's <br />plan. <br /> <br />Mr. McCarty - You can amend your long term plan to include unforeseen items. <br />It is a simple amending process. <br /> <br />Mr. Doty referred back to Commissioner Bauerkemper's remarks regarding city <br />developing park after the bond issue is voted down by the public. Possibly <br />the referendum failing did not mean that the public did not want a park, it <br />could mean they did not want it developed by bond monies. Funds are collected <br />within a city for specific purposes, like parks, and unless the park is totally <br />objectionable to the public, the city can use those funds to develop that park <br />bit by bit. Mounds View is doing the same thing right now. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Loeding referred to Section 5.08, Recall and stated that Ramsey has not <br />indicated what majority is sufficient for recall; that a specific number <br />may as well be written in. <br /> <br />Mr. McCarty pointed out that Mounds View travelled on the assumption that State <br />law applies to election, and what they have done is give anyone subject to <br />recall a delay tactic. <br /> <br />Chairman Heitman noted that Mounds View is living under and working with charter <br />rule and inquired if they have had any real problems. <br /> <br />Mounds View representatives stated that they have not. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Loeding stated that issues have come up -- recall, confusion of long term <br />financial plan in the budget section, matter of equipment debt certificates. <br />With regards to debt certificates, State law provides statutory cities the <br />right to spend above and beyond they levy limit with these certificates. Mounds <br />View's general feeling is that we did not want to include a provision for staff <br />proposing to spend thousands of dollars. State law allows council to supercede <br />charter, so council could write off a debt certificate even if your charter <br />disallows it. <br /> <br />Discussion ensLed whether or not a certificate of indebtedness varies from an <br />equipment debt certificat6, what the limits a~e, and the confines of spending <br />that money. <br /> <br />CC/October 20, !983 <br /> <br /> <br />