Laserfiche WebLink
<br />necessity to the taxpayer for a natural resources inventory before bringing this up to the <br />City Council. <br /> <br />Board Member Max stated the two documents would be related but not necessarily both <br />utilized for the same purpose. <br /> <br />Environmental Specialist Bacon stated that the impetus was to look at the Tree <br />Preservation ordinance impact. He concurred with Board Member Bentz because <br />decreased lot sizes do decrease the natural resource habitat. He stated one of the impacts <br />of a wetland study, the tree ordinance, and a natural resources inventory would be the <br />change to the rural preserve, which recently changed to rural development. He asked <br />members of the EPB to consider how this study has impacted other City Council <br />decisions. <br /> <br />Chairperson McDilda stated that the real benefit from a homeowner's standpoint may be <br />subjective, since the major cause for the EPB to take on is preservation. He stated that <br />the EPB takes different pieces from many considerations to demonstrate a true benefit. <br />He stated there is no defined measurement of the benefit. He asked if it might be <br />necessary for the benefit to be measured first. <br /> <br />Chairperson McDilda stated that an inventory of this size would be substantial. He stated <br />this may necessitate asking the residents of Ramsey to justify the cost. <br /> <br />Board Member Max asked how quickly this inventory even needs to be done. He stated <br />that doing it over a long period of time may save money. <br /> <br />Board Member Sibilski stated that being able to tie this into something like what Andover <br />is doing in the election, going for a bond, looking for additional open space, would tell <br />Ramsey what type of community the citizens want to preserve, refurbish, or upgrade. He <br />stated that Andover is going for a 2 million dollar bond to preserve elements of their city <br />that they feel critical. He stated he would like to see this type of activity in Ramsey. <br /> <br />Chairperson McDilda concurred that getting residents involved in this would be <br />preferable. <br /> <br />Board Member Sibilski stated that the goal should be to preserve areas, and that may not <br />mean turning every preservation project into a park. <br /> <br />Board Member Max stated that he was pleased that one of the Ramsey City Council <br />members noted that he didn't have a problem with putting this on the ballot. <br /> <br />Chairperson McDilda stated that if it were desirable to pass this on a ballot and be <br />accepted, then the EPB members would have to be very involved in promoting the issue. <br /> <br />Board Member Sibilski asked if this should be an additional goal to be worked on for the <br />next year. <br /> <br />Environmental Policy Board / September 11, 2006 <br />Page 11 of 13 <br />