First session - After splitting into separate groups most people ended up in the stuffy foyer but it was worth it.
From City Engineering head Brian Olson (with comparative input from others):
A REASONABLY SIZED [200 FRONT FEET] SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE PRESENTLY WOULD BE ASSESSED ABOUT SIXTY THOUSAND [$60,000]IN TRUNK AND OTHER HOOK-UP CHARGES IF MET COUNCIL SEWER AND MUNICIPAL WATER IS ADJACENT AND THE HOMEOWNER IS FORCED TO HOOK UP OR PAY AN ASSESSMENT AS IF HOOKED UP. AND THAT $60.000 IS INDEPENDENT OF REPLUMBING COSTS INSIDE THE HOME TO ACCOMODATE THE CUT-OVER.
IT WOULD COST LESS THAN FIFTEEN THOUSAND [$15,000] AT CURRENT COSTS TO REDO TOTALLY A WELL AND SEPTIC SITUATION --- WHOLLY NEW DESIGN, MATERIALS, INSTALLATION, FULL COSTS - FOR THE SAME PROPERTY.
THAT IS A $45,000 DIFFERENCE. STAYING ON WELL-&-SEPTIC IS THAT MUCH BETTER FOR PROPERTY OWNERS; I.E., OUR PLAN ATTENTION CAN MEAN A $45,000 BENEFIT FOR A HOMESITE BEING FAIRLY AND CLEARLY PROTECTED FROM UNWANTED ASSESSMENT RISK.
FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND IS NOT POCKET CHANGE. NOT EVEN FOR JOHN PETERSON.
It is a humongo difference. It was a sobering disclosure. For all of us at that session who then voiced ideas about it. Upshot, a clear show-of-hands consensus was: Not me, Charlie.
That fit with a later session on the question of "benefit" from sewer/water adjacency, relative to the statutory restraint that no government assessment can exceed the benefit an improvement provides.
The consensus was, we want it clearly stated in the Comp Plan that "benefit" as a matter of Ramsey comprehensive planning policy shall be determined relative to the existing use of a single family property. Not as if some hypothetical land chop-up were to be wanted, to be allowed, and to happen with conjectural high-profit-taking from the subdivision chop-up.
Residents felt they should not be put between the rock and hard place of wanting to continue their lifestyle choices of years in the home they want to continue occupying without suffering a staggering financial hit or being forced by the magnitude of an assessment to gamble on a property chop-up and selling into some future uncertain market. No home owner wants that. Later, if there's a change of mind or of ownership, and subdivision permission is sought, then the new situation can be assessed at that point according to the request being made. That was second session, definition of "benefit" for Ramsey to choose to apply.
First session, in more detail, it was the overwhelming will of those participating that (without any hedging or equivocation), THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHALL STATE:
1. No Ramsey home shall be forced to hook up if served by operating septic and well systems or if the homeowner chooses repair or upgrade of a defective well or septic to be able to continue without a forced hookup.
2. No assessment shall be levied for sewer and water when a homeowner has refused a hook up in favor of keeping a well-&-septic status quo.
3. Sewer and water availability to a developing property shall not be a cause or excuse for the developer to ignore the need for true density transition in order for the new housing to fit reasonably into the neighborhood. (There was a minority opinion that property rights of a developer or land holder were preemptive so that integrating flawlessly into a neighborhood need not be mandated. However, a strong show-of-hands majority favored compulsory density transitioning [in a meaningful and not superficial or cosmetic way as with present berming/screening provisions]). A strong majority felt all negative impacts of a development should be kept within a development and bourn by the developer without rights-of-way, etc., that could easily be kept within the development being forced onto neighboring parcels simply to yield higher development profit. (It makes sense that if any such costs or impacts are delocalized off the developing site by necessity, then cross-payment by the developer to the impacted home(s) should be a requirement, although this concept was not extensively discussed).
4. Clustering, if done, shall be true clustering to protect a permanant open space benefit, and not ghost platting for staged build-outs without protecting initial open areas via non-buildable land preservation status.
5. Sewer/water routing is understood to be most economical if pipes are laid through wetland because less depth of digging is required; however, every feasible civil engineering effort should be made to protect the wetland from permanant harm and drainage; and tree preservation and habitat concerns should always be considered as serious factors.
That is from memory, and a detail or two of the session notes might differ.
Those mandatory protections (including the "benefit to the property" standard from the second session) would mean the Met Council would receive and have to sign off on that collective will, because it's current posturing is that it does not coerce, and instead approves what communities want. Yeah, sure. If we stand firm we can test the truth of that.
The "PLAN SHALL STATE" terminology was generally regarded as the highest level of protection we could have against later mischief, and though not perfect it was far better than any lesser protective thing such as ordinance wording. People felt that anything less than that, less than clear Comp Plan language where Met Council would be having to sign off on the planning being structured that way, would be insufficient assurance against risk and duplicity --- with the present ordinance situation generally perceived as a cold comfort, so cold as to be highly uncomfortable, and really no actual comfort at all.
A $45,000 per-home Bumstead Boost for not understanding:
My feeling - any councilmember up for reelection who does not steadfastly and honestly support that feeling throughout the planning negotiations and process should be ousted from office by a compelling and forceful majority vote. Make the collective public feelings clear that way. Make the message forceful. Go as far as Lake Elmo did (if that is what's needed to knock sense into Met. Council) and go down fighting and not appeasing if that's the end result.
Bob Ramsey stopped by at the second "benefit" shall mean ... session, and he and I and the others there generally agreed about being grandfathered-in on existing homestead use being determinative for putting a bound on assessments, and that such "grandfathering" of existing use was within our general view of "property rights" where he and I had no disagreement. The mayor did not stop by.
How Peterson fronted cost for his pipe dreams.
There was some fairly substantial consensus at the two sessions, and across groups, that the Peterson Pipeline Paradigm should be used as a test of the resolve of the Crabgrassers, i.e., to see if they are willing to bear all their Crabgrass risk, and to face and allow an outcome from a balanced unbiased market.
Bob Ramsey and I appear to agree, and he can contradict me if I misunderstand, that subsidies jigger things in ways that market-impartiality might judge differently.
If a go/no go decision on a venture is contemplated by a Crabgrass coalition as too risky if unsubsidized, then project abandonment, not subsidy is the answer. At Town Center or elsewhere. I think our differences would be over where, on a continuum between two poles neither of us would argue for, the extremes being pure laziz faire or pure scoialization, a balance between private and public rights should be set in actual individual cases by good sense and without resort to generic terminology.
If it's only developer-speculator money at risk, not yours, it's also a little easier to stand and watch even what you think is a bad thing for neighborhoods and for the city.
At least your pocket's not being picked to subsidize profit-taking or to shift risks to you while you think the project stinks and the profit potential is boosted for Crabgrass out of your wealth, not theirs. Fairness and all that.
Peterson paid to play, just like you pay to play at Las Vegas. He did not say, "Do it for me, but with their cash." People at the session saw a compelling propriety to that concept.
The Hunts had their own parallel first-session family pow-wow. They came up with the idea that extending sewer-water to the vicinity of their lands was nonproblematic and as good an idea as slicing bread or putting beer in bottles. No downside they could think of.
While other groups considered the "Peterson Pipeling Paradigm" as beneficial it seemed to not occur to the Hunt clan I guess, for it was not on their session charting. They had no notation that others might feel if you want it for your land and benefit then you front the money it takes to route and install it and that is all part of your Crabgrass risk. That's how Peterson got it to the cornfield by Hwy 5 - Trott Brook. He paid. Good or bad for Ramsey can be debated, but at least the Peterson Pipeline Paradigm of having Crabgrass interests front Crabgrass costs and expenses without trying to socialize them to the citizenry in general, was viewed as better than the other way around, by most attendees.
The mayor was there at least half-way through and all the way to the end. On reflection I may cease referring to him generically as "the mayor" and call him, properly enough, "Town Center Tom." Or, "The Optimist, Town Center Tom." We shall see whether the idea sticks in future posts.
In closing, here again is the key concession, already made, publicly, and of record, by the Met. Council's direct policy-making representative who we know keeps her word:
In black-and-white and the committment couldn't be any more clearly stated than that.
See, here, for that page in its full three-page context.
She means what she says.
So,we have the approval already, and staff only needs to write it the way the citizen-session established as wanted in no uncertain terms. And vote out anyone on council trying to stand in the way. Recall exists for a reason, even for seats not up in the 2008 cycle.
That means we should have quite smooth saling through the process next summer when the plan's presented to Met. Council, about the time the Governor has his party's convention in the Twin Cities and wants all things governmental that are run by his appointees to sail smoothly.
Here's hoping that what was said clearly by Ms. Steffen at the April 5, 2004 work session is still as true as when it was then said - and that minutes will not at this late date be characterized as some form of unfortunate "misquoting."
_____________
Finally, a new final 2008 Comp Plan session will be added in the Dec. 2007 or Jan. 2008 timeframe. The Future of Ramsey Town Center. That gives months for Town Center uncertainties to stabilize. The idea was Bob Ramsey's and staff liked the idea.
My idea - put the morgue on barges on the Mississippi. Then - Call it The Port of Ramsey. That way we could have a Port Authority without bending truth too badly. Nobody at the meeting liked the idea.