Laserfiche WebLink
resulting in language that conflicts and is impossible to implement which results in bad policy <br />and bad laws. By default, using the proposed Charter language, any improvement would be <br />defined as leapfrog development. This would apply unless 100% of the property owners petition <br />for the project. Mr. Kiefer encouraged the Council to decline to call an election for the following <br />reasons: The amendment is manifestly unconstitutional or illegal; charging property owners <br />more than the benefit is illegal; going forward with a special election, if successful, will result in <br />just the opposite of what Section 8.7 reports the purpose of the proposed amendment is, i.e. not <br />placing a financial and emotional burden on property owners. This proposed amendment does <br />place a financial and emotional burden on property. Mr. Kiefer continued that some of the <br />petition circulators have claimed to represent the citizens of Ramsey - no special interests; <br />however, in his opinion, this is disingenuous. They have led people to believe they want to save <br />taxpayer money, want the Charter/Council to represent the majority of the residents and they <br />want large lot developments. However, they orchestrate the amendments to require special <br />elections which cost thousands of dollars. It results in lower voter turnout and represents special <br />interest disproportionately. The result of this amendment will require smaller lots/higher density <br />to offset the cost of improvement projects. Actions speak louder than words. He challenged the <br />petition circulators to bring amendments during a general election. That results in minimal <br />taxpayer impact and is more representative of the majority of the City. Mr. Kiefer stated he <br />again would like to encourage the City Council to make the difficult decision not to call for this <br />special election. <br /> <br />Mr. Zaetsch referred to Ms. Muehlhauser who testified earlier that she was misrepresented when <br />she signed the petition. He pointed out that she did not sign his petition. He added there is <br />~othing in this proposed amendment that says Mr. Peterson cannot develop his property; it only <br />says he has to pay. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated that Mr. Zaetsch says that Mr. Peterson needs pipe in the ground <br />and all you are asking is that he pays for it. He is paying. What the amendment is asking is <br />illegal in his mind and from the opinions of the attorneys. It says that he has to pay for all costs. <br /> <br />Mr. Zaetsch stated that no one has to pay for anyone who wants to hook up along the route. If <br />someone is forced to hook up later, there will be an escrow to help them out. To the extent <br />money is built into escrow - the money can be given back if no one needs it. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated that the Charter says that the City Council should decide if we <br />should control development. We are doing it on a case by case basis. This proposed amendment <br />is saying "let's make it a Charter thing". This is not the best practice. <br /> <br />Susan Anderson, 15840 Juniper Ridge Drive NW, stated that right now any project the City has <br />put in where people refuse to hook up, the City is carrying the bag. The whole conversation has <br />been geared to new development. In this City, we have a whole lot of existing developments that <br />are not currently being served by City sewer and water. As time goes on, it's likely some of <br />these areas will be served by City services. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen stated that the project Susan Anderson is referring to came within $20 of <br />breaking even because the City assessed out 130% of the costs. <br /> <br />City Council - Special Meeting May 18, 2005 <br /> Page 10 of 12 <br /> <br /> <br />