Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

@ Lukerman (cont): Six new policeman, and I think facetially, he said, and it has taken at least $4,000.00 worth of wear and tear on me to get this thru. But, I do think, that a project of this magnitude, particularily in so far as it changes in my judgement the whole premise of your comprehensive plan, should be subjected to a much more detailed . benefit cost analysis to satisfy yourself that indeed the tax benefit is something you . are looking for and that you have the necessary documentation. That is why I honestly could not find it i~ the materials that were presented to me. Oliphant: Let me ask you. During your investigation for this hearing this evening, did you check to determine whether or not the City Council was, in fact, implementing the comprehensive plan? Lukerman: Yes, I did. In as much as preparing for this evening, I checked with the municipal commission and did receive a statement from the Municipal Commission that was actually taken from the testimony that in fact the City of Ramsey, this is a direct quote that MMC gave me. That the to\vuship has hired the services of a planner and its using a comprehensive use plan that has been adopted and implemented. This was dated Sept., 6, 1974. Oliphant: This document you have received from whom? wkerman: The Minnesota Municipal Commission. Oliphant: And it is a direct quote from what again? Lukerman: From the testimony at the time at which the acquiestered incorporation by the City of Ramsey occurred before the Board of the MuniCipal Commission. Gorham: It mentions findings of facts, conclusions of laws and order. Ramsey Corpor- . ation hearing. Township has hired the services of a planner and zoning comprehensive use plan has been adopted. Sept. 6, 1974. No signature or anything on it. Goodrich: You can take it for its value. I "muld.... ..INTERRUPTION. Albert: From whom was that? Goodrich: MMC.~*~--------- We did not meet after Sept. 6, 1974. Oliphant: It is in the findings of fact of the Municipal Commission. These are a part of the findings of act based on the testimony and findings in support of the petition now. To become a stat~atory City. Goodrich: May I remind the Board that this refers to events which occurred from May of 1972 thru the final incorporation. So the date of when the township planner was hired and comprehensive plan etc. was not made pacific here. Gorham: Is there any reason to persue this? Goodrich: Again I say, accept it for its face value. Oliphant: It is evidence that the Municipal Commission in committing this land mass to become a statuatory City was convinced that the to.inship had hired the services of a planner and a zoning and comprehensive land use plan had been adopted and implemented. Is it your judgement that the plan has been implemented? . Lukerman: I find very contradictory evidence on this point if I may answer that in two ways because I do see evidence that the City has proceeded in ma~ways to implement the plan that I see up on the wall. You have adopted a zoning ordinance with zoning districts that very definitely apply and have provis?-ons that relate to the proposals that contained in your planned report. That to me is evidence of implementation. I also see another evidence of implementation in the sewer plan, which you authorized