Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Enstrom stated that as long as the agreement is in writing and signed there is not an issue <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen replied that getting to the point is the problem. If truly the Met <br />Council does not want a four in forty requirement then there should be no problem with <br />removing it, but he suspects that the requirement was removed because something else was <br />added. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated that the plan is that if the four in forty requirement is lifted <br />then someone else in the City would be forced to hook up to sewer and water. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that one of the things the Met Council is requiting is that <br />when sewer and water go in front of a house they want the City to force those residents to hook <br />up. There is a Charter amendment stopping that from happening, but three members of the <br />Council could vote the amendment invalid and then the residents would not be protected. <br /> <br />Mr. Enstrom replied that a lot of the people in the northwest side of Ramsey have been <br />developed for 20 to 30 years and most of the septics are failing. He questioned if it is better to <br />have City sewer and water installed or have residents installing a new mound system. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that he did not think the word "failure" is the tight word. He <br />explained that there is a reasonable life of a drain field and then at that time, a property owner <br />would need to create another drain field. The cost of creating a new drain field is not anywhere <br />near the cost of connecting to City sewer and water. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak stated that she does not believe that three members of the Council <br />rendered any Charter amendment invalid. What they did was vote to accept the opinion or <br />enforceability of a Charter amendment. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich noted that what Councilmember Kurak stated was correct. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak stated that she sat through at least two or three meetings regarding the <br />Comprehensive Plan in which both Councilmember Hendriksen and Councilmember <br />Zimmerman were present. She does not agree with the statement made by Councilmember <br />Hendriksen that he did not have input into the changes that were made in the Comprehensive <br />Plan prior to its submittal. He did not agree with the changes, but that is different than not being <br />made aware of the changes. <br /> <br />Suzanne Dvorak, stated that she had a copy of the Comprehensive Plan in frOnt of her and read in <br />the Plan where it stated that the central planning area is a feasibility study only and was added in <br />order to remove the four in forty requirement. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that he was familiar with what was stated in the <br />Comprehensive Plan regarding the study area, but he also read the minutes of the Met Council <br /> <br />City Council/April 24, 2001 <br /> Page 9 of 27 <br /> <br /> <br />