Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Holagek read the motion that wag made at the June 12, 2001 City Council meeting, which <br />was as follows: Motion by Councilmember Kurak, seconded by Councilmember Hendriksen, to <br />direct the City Attorney to continue the public purpose hearing condemnation action to the end of <br />July and table any further action until the second meeting in July pending staff response to <br />various questions, the presentation of options available other than what was previously <br />discussed, and directing the City Administrator to negotiate possible land acquisition with <br />willing property owners. He inquired if the City Administrator had done any of the things the <br />Council directed him to do. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman replied that he had not done those things to date, noting that it is a <br />complicated issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Holasek stated that the property owners are unable to do anything with their properties until <br />the issues are resolved. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec recommended that the property owners talk directly with staff regarding the issue. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that staff has always advised the property owners when the <br />hearings have been postponed, and once the hearing takes place the minimum amount of time the <br />City could take possession would be 90 daYs. <br /> <br />Alena Hunter, 14628 Helium Street NW, Ramsey' stated that she had been watching the play <br />back of the Planning Commission meeting of July and noticed they were discussing the Reilley <br />Estates Development and there was an issue that came up that was important to her that has <br />gotten out to particular residents. She explained that an individual named John Hatch spoke <br />during the discussion and asked whether or not the City had any intention of running sewer and <br />water into his development. The Community Development Director had noted that the City <br />Charter states that if City sewer and water is to be extended into a neighborhood it would have to <br />be done by a petition of the residents. Mr. Hatch replied that he was aware of that fact, but that <br />Councilmember Hendriksen had stated to him during the Comprehensive Plan open house that <br />they don't have to have a reason to go through a neighborhood with City sewer and water. Mr. <br />Hatch went on to say that he did not know if it was true, but Councilmember Hendriksen had <br />also indicated that the developer would get a $1,200 "kick-back" from each person that would <br />hook up to City sewer and water in addition to the development he would be constructing. Ms. <br />Hunter inquired as to what facts Councilmember Hendriksen had to back-up such a claim. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that he personally did not see that portion of the meeting, but <br />thought that Mr. Hatch may have been referring to the Met Council SAC charge, which is <br />approximately $1,200. He explained that what he told Mr. Hatch is that the Met Council has <br />been demanding that the City pay for the pipe in the ground and that the City have 19,000 people <br />on City sewer and water by a certain year. He felt that it might have been part of that <br />conversation Mr. Hatch was referring to, but could not speculate without hearing more. <br /> <br />City Council/July 24, 2001 <br /> Page 3 of 24 <br /> <br /> <br />