Minutes - Council - 06/13/2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

9) Adopt Resolution #06-06-175 Authorizing the Automark Voting Equipment In all Precincts in the City of Ramsey Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Jeffrey, Olson, Cook, Elvig, and Pearson. Voting No: None. Absent: Councilmember Strommen. COUNCIL BUSINESS Case #1: Public Hearing: Consider Amendment to City Charter Chapter 8 Pursuant to Ordinance Recommended by the Charter Commission Mayor Gamec closed the regular portion of the City Council meeting at 7:23 p.m. in order to conduct a public hearing. Public Hearinl! Mayor Gamec called the public hearing to order at 7:23 p.m. Presentation City Attorney Goodrich indicated on May 22, 2006, the Charter Commission recommended an ordinance to the City Council to amend Chapter 8 of the City Charter. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to limit the ability of owners of properties zoned for commercial or industrial uses or owners of properties zoned residential greater than ten acres in size to petition against public improvement special assessment projects. The amendment would also prohibit owners of non-homestead real property greater than one acre in size from petitioning against such public improvements. Public Works Director Olson indicated staff believes the intent of the Charter when it was written was to protect the single family residents from sewer and water assessments as they were proposed by the City or by a petitioner. What is currently possible is that commercial/industrial properties or vacant residential land that is able to be developed has the ability to counter petition an improvement for transportation purposes in and adjacent to their subdivision. What happens is the first person that comes in is the first person that has to pay for regional improvements, and if another person comes in they will benefit from those and will not have to pay for those improvements, such as turn lanes and through lanes. With the ability for the second sub- dividable piece of property to counter the project that would assess the benefit to who really deserves to have to pay for the benefits, they could block a project in a subdivision that would render the City unable to move forward with the improvement and assessment for that subdivision for at least one year. The intent of this amendment is to make it fair for those properties that have approached the City and have the ability to subdivide in the future. Councilmember Olson asked if this would apply to properties that are separate lots with separate PID's, but are contiguous with one property owner. Public Works Director Olson replied if those properties were residential and greater than 10 acres in size it would apply to them. City Council! June 13,2006 Page 5 of 26