Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Garnet noted that the Metropolitan Council has done this through their SAC charges <br />which charges the City one way or the other for the size of the pipe whether it is developed or <br />not. <br /> <br />Councilmember Haas Steffen stated it appears the Metropolitan Council indicated the capacity <br />when the line was installed but maybe this is more people than envisioned. <br /> <br />Mayor Garnet inquired regarding the obligation of the Council as elected officials. He noted that <br />when they became elected they took an oath of office saying they would abide by the <br />Constitution of the United States and the State of Minnesota. Mayor Gamec noted that the State <br />Statutes overrule the City's rules and asked if the Council is bound by that and if it takes <br />precedence over the City's ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. LeFevere stated that if you concluded this charter amendment is an unauthorized act and <br />invalid, then it is the Council's duty to uphold the laws of the State if this is not consistent with <br />the laws of the State. However, this is not all that clear cut. He stated this is a difficult issue to <br />decide on because it makes no sense to sue the residents who started the charter amendment and <br />there is no one else to sue. Either action taken places the City in a position of being sued and the <br />opponents in a position to sue the City. Mr. LeFevere stated that it seems there are other options <br />such as to follow the procedure and hold an election to extend the MUSA line (which might be <br />challenged) or disregard this Charter provision, declare it not valid, and don't hold an election. <br />However, either course may lead to litigation. Mr. LeFevere pointed out that there may be other <br />ways that can be avoided if interested parties on both sides are willing to talk to see if there is <br />common ground where there can be more public input or participation in a way that everyone <br />would agree to so the charter can be amended by recommendation to the Charter Commission, <br />recommendation from the Charter Commission, and unanimous vote of the Council. <br /> <br />Councilmember Haas Steffen stated that she is not sure this is a case of the City or individual <br />having to sue. She stated that it appears this is an area being looked at by several cities who have <br />charters and are concerned with groups of people. She commented that what Ramsey does or <br />does not do may involve a group of people, a class action type of law suit, or it could result in an <br />attorney who may want to take the opposing side and not ask for a huge fee to take this on. <br /> <br />Mr. LeFevere agreed that whatever action taken there may be someone who wants to challenge <br />the City. Another potential may be that the courts will not accept a law suit unless they have <br />before them the real parties of interest. In that case, the court may reject the law suit and refuse <br />to rule on it. <br /> <br />Councilmember Haas Steffen stated that she thinks Ramsey got into having amendments like this <br />and others in the Charter because some citizens felt that, perhaps, the City processes were too <br />closed and they were not allowed time and opportunity to make comment. Also there is a great <br />fear to residents who own more than an acre of land that they would be taxed out of their homes <br />if required to connect to sewer. She commented that, to a certain extent, the Council has tried to <br />alleviate some of those fears by opening the process of the Plan amendment and giving groups of <br />people and individuals the opportunity to serve on committees to provide input on how they want <br /> <br />City Council/June 9, 1998 <br />Page 17 of 27 <br /> <br /> <br />