My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 05/18/2005 - Special
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
2005
>
Minutes - Council - 05/18/2005 - Special
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/24/2025 1:49:31 PM
Creation date
6/15/2005 8:28:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Title
Special
Document Date
05/18/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Councilmember Elvig stated that it could backfire and the City could get stuck with the bill to <br />which Mr. Baker agreed. <br /> <br />Mr. Baker stated that the allegations about misrepresentations were made - that's not something <br />the City Council could rely on. It's a misdemeanor to use knowing falsehoods. There is nothing <br />in the Minnesota State law that would authorize the City Council to hold the question from the <br />ballot based on alleged misrepresentation. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman stated that he has been getting telephone calls regarding this. There <br />is a great deal of concern by people who signed the petition and then realized they had been <br />"hoodwinked". <br /> <br />Mr. LeFevere stated he would be reluctant to advise the City to not call an election if it was <br />unconstitutional in some cases but not in others. What distinguishes this proposed Charter <br />amendment from others is it applies to only leapfrog development. It will make someone pay for <br />someone else's benefit. It will be unconstitutional in every single case. <br /> <br />Councilmember Olson stated she wanted to be very clear on this. If this were passed and <br />somewhere down the road the City held the ball on hookups, then in effect, all the citizens would <br />be held responsible for hook ups of other people. <br /> <br />Mr. Baker replied that is correct. The City has some form of takings - damages would have to <br />be reimbursed. <br /> <br />Mr. LeFevere stated he did not think there's a clear answer as to who would pay in that <br />circumstance. You could fund it through the utility fund and reimburse through the connection <br />fees. He gave some examples of options as to how to reimburse the money. <br /> <br />Councilmember Olson commented that regardless, as citizens of Ramsey, you would be stuck <br />holding the bag. <br /> <br />Councilmember Jeffrey stated that the benefiting properties would not be paying their benefit - it <br />would be paid for by a larger group - all citizens in Ramsey would be actually paying the bill. <br /> <br />Mr. LeFevere stated the City Council would have to decide where the funds would come from. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec pointed out that the residents in the urban areas would be made to pay twice. <br /> <br />Mr. LeFevere again mentioned the City cannot charge more than the benefit. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook talked about park dedication. The City did some park districting so the <br />developers could not come and say that their dedication was not benefiting their developments. <br />This is the same type of situation. You cannot spend the money someplace else. <br /> <br />Lynetta Muehlhauser, 17325 Nowthen Boulevard NW, inquired if the amendment is asking <br />builders to pay connection fees also or just the extensions. <br /> <br />City Council - Special Meeting May 18, 2005 <br /> Page 6 of 12 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.