Laserfiche WebLink
Attorney Ooodrich pointed out that this is commercial/industrial. The public is not that <br />concemedi about commercial/industrial. The public is more concerned about residential. <br />However, ]he Charter pretty much takes care of residential property. Based on the second <br />Charter amendment, if you have a functioning well and/or on-site septic, you cannot be <br />assessed for municipal sewer and water. You cannot be forced to hook up to City <br />utilities. ~he resident will have a pretty adequate defense to keep the sewer/water from <br />coming inSf it's not wanted. <br /> <br />Commissioner Anderson felt that if this goes for a referendum, we will lose. <br /> <br />CommissiOner Kiefer reiterated that the issue is not a Burger King. The issue is are we <br />going to allow City Council's hands to be tied from doing what they were elected to do. <br />If the prol~onents of this come out against this and want to make an issue of this, it will <br />not be because of a Burger King. Chapter I4 appears like it's more intended to protect <br />residential than commercial. <br /> <br />Attorney Goodrich stated that it might be nice to work with the proponents of this Charter <br />amendmet~t~' and present an amendment - maybe negotiate something. <br /> <br />Commissioner Vogt inquired if there is any potential of residential property being <br />affected if~the MUSA is moved. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kiefer reminded Commissioner Vogt that the residential property is <br />protected by the Charter - they can opt out of hook-up providing their system is working. <br /> <br />ChairpersCn Peterson stated this will be setting a precedent to which Attorney Goodrich <br />agreed. Attorney Goodrich stated that the MUSA line is not the City's, it's the Met <br />Council's.~ They control it. They would not let us go "hell-bent" into these areas. They <br />will not gl,ye us that much capacity - it's all staged. <br /> <br />Mr. Norman summarized that the City Council asked that t¢,e opinion given by Mr. <br />LeFevere and by the City Attorney be reviewed by the Charter Commission and then <br />commented on. The legal opinion refers to Section 14.1.3 of the City Charter and deals <br />with its V[alidity. Council has also asked staff to give them an inventory as to how <br />residents ~an be assured this will not bring sewer to their residence and to check with the <br />City's planner to see if these residences need more protection. <br /> <br />Commission Vogt felt there will be more commercial property going in this area and <br />people will have to make a decision whether to go on City services or not. <br /> <br />Chairperso~ n Peterson stated that another argument would be that tkis could preserve the <br />private sy~stems better - there would be no dumping of additional effluent into septic <br />systems. He reiterated that residents are protected - they will not be forced to hook up to <br />municipalmtilities if they do not want to. <br /> <br /> Charter Commission/June 15, 1998 <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />