Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />-I <br />(. ) <br />\<.~.. <br />I / <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />-, <br />I <br />CI) <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />1) <br />I <br /> <br />'\ <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that he has spoken with Count~ Commissioner <br />Natalie Haas and she has indicated that she will support whatever position <br />the City of Ramsey takes. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Reimann and seconded by Councilmember Sorteberg to <br />adopt Resolution #83-17 that the City of Ramsey go on record as opposing. <br />Site "P" and further to request that the County remove Site "P" from it's <br />inventory of sites. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Council consensus is that~athe Resolution #83-17 was <br />adopted based on Ramsey.s Landfill Impact Report and,economic reasons <br />outlined in that report, further that Mr. Cox's letter of March 21, 1983 <br />regarding Site "P" will serve as the basis for the resolution. <br /> <br />Natalie Haas - Was present at the meeting anq commented that the County does <br />not have the authority to delete Site "P", only to recommend that Metro <br />Council delete Site liP". <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich suggested that someone representing the City of Ramsey <br />attend the County meeting scheduled for March 22, 1983. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec recommended that City Attorney Goodrich and City Administrator <br />Schnelle attend the County meeting. <br /> <br />Counei lmember Reimann amends his motion to tncl ude that Ci ty Attorney Goodri ch <br />and City Admini.strator Schnelle attend the County meeting on March 22, 1983. <br /> <br />Councilmember Sorteberg seconded the amendment to the motton. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Schlueter, Reimann, <br />Van Wagner and Sorteberg. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case #2: Work Session Regarding Proposed Public Improvements and Special <br />Assessments Polley: <br /> <br />Councilmember Schlueter distributed copies of a list of questions she has <br />outlined regarding the Public Utilities Ordinace. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich informed the audience that the proposed policy is a <br />33 page document (pages 1-15 deal withLpol icY: and pages 16-33 are amendments <br />to-the ordinance) prepared by the Ad ~oc Committee. <br /> <br />John Lichter commented that the Ad Hoc Committee did not make a resolution <br />to adopt this.policy, that the Ad Hoc Committee compiled and prepared the <br />policy and only forwarded it to the Council for their review and adoption. <br /> <br />Question #1: Explain "The amount of the charge does not exceed the value <br />of the benefits received.1I <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that the State law dictates that you cannot <br />assess anyone for anything if they do not benefit by it and the citizenry <br />have the right to appeal an assessment. . <br /> <br />Question #2: Word "speciallyll found in BENEFIT PRINCIPAL, can we use the <br />work "speci fi ca lly" interchangeably? <br /> <br />Sp C/March 21, 1983 <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />