Laserfiche WebLink
APPROVEAGENDA <br /> <br />It was noted that the agenda coversheet had the cases numbered differently than the agenda itself <br />and the Commission voted to discuss the petition for public improvements first, Council vacancy <br />appointment second and the City Manager Form of Govet~m~ent third. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bertzyk asked why the ongoing discussion of 4.5.5 and the list of Committee <br />input items was not on this agenda. It was noted that discussion of public improvements is on <br />the agenda and City Clerk Thieling informed Commission Bertzyk that the list of Committee <br />input items would be back on but since this was a very full agenda, it was not included. <br /> <br />Consensus of the Committee was to approve the agenda. <br /> <br />COMMISSION BUSINESS: <br /> <br />Case #1: Consider Petition for Public Improvements and Special Assessments <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman stated that Chapter 8 of the City's Charter includes language for <br />Public Improvements and Special Assessments. The piece the Charter should talk about is in the <br />beginning of this section which was approved in 1993. The City has been having trouble with <br />this in recent years. It is staff's belief that the Charter was designed to protect residents against <br />being forced to hook up to City sewer and water, but this has also been protecting the developers <br />and that was not the intent. An example is Town Center Gardens; they have found a way to get <br />out from the large assessments so the Ramsey Town Center had to pay for all the public <br />improvements, and Town Center Gardens did not. Mr. Norman stated there are a couple of other <br />properties now that this could happen with. The way it is written, now whoever develops first <br />has to pay for all these improvements. Because of these protections, it's going against what the <br />intent was. He reiterated the intent was to protect cun'ent Ramsey residents and taxpayers. This <br />is actually having a negative effect on taxpayers. Staff would like to draft language that takes <br />developers out and leaves only the residents in. <br /> <br />Attorney Goodrich stated that major concern is transportation improvements - not City sewer <br />and water. We have that protection in Chapter 8. The impact fees for transportation in <br />Minnesota are illegal. We can also use Chapter 4441 for sewer and water. We are trying to <br />devise a difference between small lot people and cun'ent residents and large lots people such as <br />developers. <br /> <br />Mr. Norman agreed that the concern is transportation - not sewer and water. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer mentioned adding to the number of days stated to which Mr. Goodrich <br />replied 60 days is the timeframe to allow petitioning against and we might want to talk about that <br />too. We cannot do away with Chapter 429 but we cannot live with developers getting their <br />neighbors to do it and then they (developers) do not have to pay. <br /> <br />Mr. Norman talked about some of the developers including Pulte and Plowshare, etc. and the <br />deuelopment of Ramsey Crossings, for example. The City did an Environnqental Assessment <br /> <br />Charter Commission - April 27, 2006 <br /> Page 2 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />