Laserfiche WebLink
Encourage neighborhood meetings and other forums that will bring the project proponent <br />together with those in opposition. These meetings should happen before the matter comes <br />before the council or planning commission. Encourage both sides to get the facts out on the <br />table, dispel the rumors, and to search for compromise on issues of concern. <br /> <br />· Listen with empathy to opponents, but educate people about your role ( .~_., <br /> e ~ see your point, <br /> but ]~ have to follow the law."). <br /> <br />Keep order in your council meetings.· Let folks know that the facts and the law matter far <br />more than the vo{ume of voice. Maintain decorum. Make it clear that cheering, clapping, and <br />jeering will not be allowed. <br /> <br />· Get advice [rom the city attorney as to the options available. Involve him or her in helping <br /> your city build the record and drafting-the findings to support your decision. <br /> <br />Problem #2: The Costs of Development <br />Competing interests are present when a developer and a city begin hammering out the terms of a <br />project. Generally speaking, developers want infrastructure items like sewers, streets, electricity,, <br />gas, drainage, and water to be funded and constructed bY the public or through tax exempt <br />financing. The developer would also like control over the pace of development. The public <br />sector, on the other hand, wants to see development pay its own way. It would prefer the <br />construction of infrastructure to be timed and sized to meet demand and funding. It would like to <br />see development contribute to the accomplishment of greater public goals such as affordable <br />housing, parks, transportation planning, and job creation. Given the high dollar stakes in <br />development, it is not surprising that these tensions sometimes boil over into legal contests and <br />legislative battles. <br /> <br />Minnesota law empowers cities to make development pay its own way. Cities ma~; pass <br />subdivis ia n regulatio ns that req u ire development to bear the costs of construction and installation <br />of infrastructure items. Cities may also, by ordinance, require the payment of fees to defray the <br />costs at' "reviewing, investigating, and administering" applications for approvals required under <br />th'e city's official controls. These tees must be 'y'air, reasonable, andproportionace to the actual <br />cos~ of the service Jbr which the fee is imposed," and must be "maintained and used only for the <br />purpo.ye for which they czre collected." <br /> <br />There is a very real economic incentive for developers to object or file suit if they believe the <br />tees are unlawful or unreasonable. Here are some things to think about when considering tees: <br /> <br />Decisions about whether ~o pursue cost recovery in general, and the amounts of tees in <br />particular, should be made at the council level in the form of an ordinance. The record should <br />contain a confirmation that cost recovery alone is the city's primary motivation. <br /> <br />Development tees cannot be used' as a solution to general revenue problems. Fees can only be <br />used to recover the cost of infrastructure improvements and staff work necessitated by the <br />development itself. <br /> <br />61 <br /> <br /> <br />