Minutes - Council - 03/28/1983 - Special

Home

now being argued is should residents of an MSA street be required to a partial assessment considering they are benefiting by a paved street just as those residents of a residential paved street are and paying full assessment. Another point of argument is that because the City picks up a portion of upgrading MSA streets, there are less funds available for use on other streets in the City. Councilmember Reimann stated that while he served on Ad Hoc for Public Utilities, he recommended assessing residents of an MSA street 100% because they do benefit and the other citizens of Ramsey should not have to pay for MSA residents to have a paved street. The committee went along with my suggestion. At the March 22, 1983 Council meeting a motion was passed to upgrade Variolite and to assess the residents 20% of the City's cost and I feel that is a step in the right direction and residents of an MSA street are definitely benefiting. Darryl Fults agreed with Councilmember Reimann. Councilmember Reimann noted that there are some drawbacks to living on an MSA street such as contending with more traffic which does make for safety hazards where children are concerned, and that maybe 100% assessment is too high, but there should be a partial assessment. Mayor Gamec stated that he would be in favor of assessing residents of an MSA street 50% of the cost of a typical residential street and polled Council for their opinions. Councilmember Sorteberg - 50%, Councilmember Schlueter - 50%, Councilmember Van Wagner - 50%-60%, Councilmember Reimann - 75%. Council consensus is to include the figure of 50% in the proposed assessment ordinance, and it was noted that this proposed figure for assessing residents of an MSA street will pass with a 3/5 vote. Mr. Menkveld, referring to terms on page 11 of proposed ordinance, stated that availability and need do not really relate to each other, that there will be no random servicing throughout the City. Trunk service has to be available to that specific area before need is provided for. John Lichterasked for a definition of "need". Mr. Berg replied that need does not necessarily mean failure of on-site septic systems, that petitioning would fall under heading of "need". John Lichter stated that wording should be included in the proposed ordinance to the effect that sewer and water will not be installed where it is not needed. Council consensus is that Item VII Policies Relating To Lateral Extension found on page 11 of the proposed ordinance should read as follows: Existing Subdivisions. No Lateral service shall be extended to any existing subdivision until such time as service is needed and trunk service is available and has been assessed to the subject property. At such time as trunk service is available, laterals may be extended as follows: Sp C/March 28, 1983 Page 8 of 14