|
statement. As to the storm water utility charge, Mr. Hendriksen all but admits at the November
<br />24, 2000 City Council meeting, the accuracy of my client's campaign literature. Hendriksen
<br />states, "The average citizen had no idea we were considering a storm water utility fee". He goes
<br />on to say the citizens felt "blind sided" by the fee. Despite Mr. Hendriksen's belief that the City
<br />followed the law in connection with the establishment of the fee, the record indicates they failed
<br />to follow their own City Charter and implemented the fee prior to their September 25, 2000
<br />public hearing, and excerpt of which is also on the video tape enclosed. To prove this point, I am
<br />enclosing a copy of a Connexus Energy electric bill dated July 17, 2000 for the Ramsey property
<br />located at 6530 Green Valley Road. On page 2 under City Services, there is a fee for storm
<br />drainage utility in the amount of $1,170.04. The reading date indicates a service period between
<br />April 10, 2000 to July 10, 2000. This is well before the September 25, 2000 public hearing.
<br />Also enclosed is a copy of page 21 from the Ramsey City Charter, Chapter 11, dealing with the
<br />establishment of fees for municipal utilities. Section 11.2 indicates a public hearing must be held
<br />before any rates for municipal utilities can be fixed by the City Council. Clearly, the Council
<br />established the storm water utility rate well before the September 25, 2000 public hearing;
<br />evidenced by the Connexus Energy bill attached to this letter. In fact, the Council established the
<br />rate pursuant to Resolution #00-06-165 as indicated in the staff memo from City Engineer Brian
<br />E. Olson (copy also enclosed). Resolution #00-06-165 was adopted at the June 27, 2000 City
<br />Council meeting, and interestingly enough, the fee was made retroactive to April 10, 2000, as
<br />indicated on the Connexus Energy bill. Again Mr. Hendriksen is wrong. The storm water utility
<br />rate was not implemented in compliance with the law. The City Council didn't even bother to
<br />follow its own Charter. Therefore, my client's campaign literature indicating the rate was
<br />implemented prior to a public hearing or notice is correct". Ms. Kurak went on to read a letter
<br />from James J. Weber Jr., Assistant Anoka County Attorney, dated May 3, 2001, to Terry
<br />Hendriksen, Patti and Tom Kurak, Alan W. Weinblatt, and Steven A. Sondrall, which stated:
<br />"My purpose in writing is to report on the disposition of the campaign practices act complaint
<br />made by Terry Hendriksen to this office on October 31, 2000. The Office of the Anoka County
<br />Attorney conducted an investigation into the complaint and on May 1, 2001, the case was
<br />presented to an Anoka County Grand Jury for consideration. After due consideration, the Anoka
<br />County Grand Jury reported that no indictment (a "No Bill") had been returned relative to the
<br />offenses of Campaign Literature Must Include Disclaimer (M.S.21 lB.04), False Political and
<br />Campaign Material (M.S.211B.06,Subd. 1), and Bribery, Treating, and Solicitation
<br />(M.S.21 lB.13, Subd. 1). Given the Grand Jury determination not to issue an indictment in this
<br />case, no criminal charges will be filed. The investigation by the Office of the Anoka County
<br />Attorney into the Campaign Practices Act complaint of Terry Hendriksen is now closed". Ms.
<br />Kurak stated that on Tuesday May 1, 2001, there was a hearing before the Anoka County Grand
<br />Jury regarding the charges Councilman Terry Hendriksen brought against her on October 31,
<br />2000. Mr. Hendriksen accused her of illegal campaign practices and a felony charge of
<br />purchasing beer for people in return for wearing Vote for Patti stickers at the Meet the
<br />Candidates get together at Diamonds Sport Bar. The hearing was a long time coming and she is
<br />very relieved to have it over at last. After six hours of testimony from 12 witnesses, there was
<br />absolutely no evidence proving she violated any campaign laws and not one soul came forward
<br />to testify that her husband or any other member of the Kurak family purchased beer for anyone in
<br />return for wearing a Vote for Patti sticker. This, of course, was not a surprise to her, her family,
<br />
<br />City Council/May 8, 2001
<br />Page 5 of 22
<br />
<br />
<br />
|