06/24/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1994, was that each current and future lawful gambling organization receive the same treatment. As such, it would seem that any softening of Council policy for one organization should result in like consideration for all others. Elimination of this revenue source would cause elimination of the matching grant program and a reduction in funds available for future park development or draw on the General Fund in like amounts. Mayor Gamec wondered about the 2% the City requests from the gambling proceeds. Ms. Hart responded that we can require a 10% contribution to remain in the City. We are taking what they are doing and enhancing what they started. Councilmember Haas Steffen pointed out that most of what these dollars are going for we would otherwise be taking out of tax dollars. She thought the Park and Recreation Commission should be discussing this issue. Case #5: Development Fees City Attorney Goodrich stated that, pursuant to Resolution #96-03-052, the City began to collect a surcharge on the issuance of building permits as a transportation impact fee. Pursuant to Ordinance #96-04, the City also began collecting a development assessment fee on all new subdivisions as a transportation impact fee. In March 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that statutory cities do not have the authority to charge the impact fees similar to those imposed by this resolution and ordinance. Mr. Goodrich was of the opinion that even though Ramsey is a charter city, it seems likely the court would conclude that charter cities also do not have the authority to impose such a fee. He recommended the Council repeal the resolution and ordinance. He also recommended that the building permit fees collected be returned to those parties who remitted the same for those homes which are not within a subdivision approved since March 1, 1996. He further recommended that the development impact fees which are referenced within each subdivision's development agreement be reviewed on a case by case basis and negotiated with the respective developers. It is staff's expectation that the affected developers will agree that the fees collected can be redesignated within the development agreement for specific improvements installed which benefit the subdivision. City Administrator Schroeder used Sunwood Drive as an example. A developer would come to the City and say he needed Sunwood Drive - they would pay a part of it and the City would pay a part of it. When the transportation impact fees were charged, this all "went away". The City pays the whole thing and the developer pays the transportation impact fee. They pay basically the same amount. Motion by Mayor Gamec and seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman to recommend Council introduce an ordinance repealing Ordinance #96-04 which is entitled "An Ordinance Establishing a Development Assessment Fee on all New Subdivisions". Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Zimmerman, Beahen and Haas Steffen. Voting No: None. Absent: CouncilmemberBeyer. Finance Committee/June 24, 1997 Page 3 of 4