Agenda - Council - 06/26/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I ! I I I i I I I statement. As to the storm water utility charge, Mr. Hendriksen all but admits at the November 24, 2000 City Council meeting the accuracy of my client's campaign literature. Hendriksen states, "The average citizen had no idea we were considering a storm water utility fee". He goes on to say the citizens felt "blind sided" by the fee. Despite Mr. Hendriksen's belief that the City followed the law in connection with the establishment of the fee, the record indicates they failed to follow their own City Charter and implemented the fee prior to their September 25, 2000 public hearing, and excerpt of which is also on the video tape enclosed. To prove this point, I am enclosing a copy of a Connexus Energy electric bill dated July 17, 2000 for the Ramsey property located at 6530 Green Valley Road. On page 2 under City Services, there is a fee for storm drainage utility in the amount of $1,170.04. The reading date indicates a service period between April 10, 2000 to July 10, 2000. This is well before the September 25, 2000 public hearing. Also enclosed is a copy of page 21 from the Ramsey City Charter, Chapter 11, dealing with the establishment of fees for municipal utilities. Section 11.2 indicates a public hearing must be held before any rates for municipal utilities can be fixed by the City Council. Clearly, the Council established the storm water utility rate well before the September 25, 2000 public hearing evidenced by the Connexus Energy bill attached to this letter. In fact, the Council established the rate pursuant to Resolution #00-06-165 as indicated in the staff memo from City Engineer Brian E. Olson (copy also enclosed). Resolution #00-06-165 was adopted at the June 27, 2000 City Council meeting, and interestingly enough the fee was made retroactive to April 10, 2000 as indicated on the Connexus Energy bill. Again Mr. Hendriksen is wrong. The storm water utility rate was not implemented in compliance with law. The City Council didn't even bother to follow its own charter. Therefore, my client's campaign literature indicating the rate was implemented prior to a public hearing or notice is correct". Ms. Kurak went on to read a letter from James J. Weber Jr., Assistant Anoka County Attorney dated May 3, 2001 to Terry Hendriksen, Patti and Tom Kurak, Alan W. Weinblatt, and Steven A. Sondrall which stated: "My purpose in writing is to report on the disposition of the campaign practices act complaint made by Terry Hendriksen to this office on October 31, 2000. The Office of the Anoka County Attorney conducted an investigation into the complaint and on May 1, 2001, the case was presented to an Anoka County Grand Jury for consideration. After due consideration, the Anoka County Grand Jury reported that no indictment (a "No Bill") had been returned relative to the offenses of Campaign Literature Must Include Disclaimer (M.S.21iB.04), False Political and Campaign Material (M.S.211B.06,Subd. 1), and Br/bery, Treating, and Solicitation (M.S.21 lB.13, Sub& 1). Given the Grand Jury determination not to issue an indictment in this case, no criminal charges will be filed. The investigation by the Office of the Anoka County Attorney into the Campaign Practices Act complaint of Terry Hendriksen is now closed". Ms. Kurak stated that on Tuesday May 1, 2001 there was a hearing before the Anoka County Grand Jury regarding the charges Councilman Terry Hendriksen brought against her on October 31, 2000. Mr. Hendriksen accused her of illegal campaign practices and a felony charge of purchasing beer for people in return for wearing Vote for Patti stickers at the Meet the Candidates get together at Diamonds Sport Bar. The hearing was a long time coming and she is very relieved to have it over at last. After six hours of testimony from 12 witnesses, there was absolutely no evidence proving she violated any campaign laws and not one soul came forward to testify that her husband or any other member of the Kurak family purchased beer for anyone in return for wearing a Vote for Patti sticker. This, of course, was not a surprise to her, her family, friends or supporters. She City Council/May 8, 2001 Page 5 of 20