My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 10/22/1996
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
1996
>
Minutes - Council - 10/22/1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/28/2025 3:56:18 PM
Creation date
7/2/2003 2:39:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
10/22/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
year or 20 years from now. To say you needed that seems fabricated. In this unique situation, the <br />amount of money you have expended to this point, you have broken even. The revenue will pay <br />this, at the time you made this commitment you had no assurance you would receive any revenue <br />from Haubrich. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder disagreed with the deficit. What we are attempting to provide to you as part of this <br />case is what's a reasonable funding situation. What if next year a 10-lot subdivision comes in with <br />a petition for City utilities. Nine lots want to hook up, one does not. How do you deal with that. <br />You pass upon how you relate to funding deficits, you have to figure out the deficit without all 10 <br />homeowners connecting to the system. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen stated he would hope that the f'mn commitments would be counted. He <br />commented on 50% with one being a vacant lot. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder stated that when Minnegasco comes to a neighborhood and they make a business <br />decision. They made a decision to run pipes knowing some properties will not be connecting. I <br />am putting a method in front of you to compute. If you had passed upon this funding scenario, we <br />would create a business expense. Is there a benefit? <br /> <br />Councilmember Peterson stated he is not comfortable with subdivision 1. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder stated that it occurs to him that in the case of a non-conforming use, if in excess of <br />50%, it loses grandfather rights. <br /> <br />Ms. Frolik added 50% of its value. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder asked if something similar would address concerns. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich asked how you determine value of a well and septic system. It was his feeling that <br />this is at a high standard because most repairs do not require a permit <br /> <br />Councilmember Beyer felt it is too soon to pass this ordinance. <br /> <br />Councilmember Peterson suggested that maybe the consensus would be to bring this to a public <br />hearing but have the public hearing deal with language amendments so that pmple know how it <br />will read. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen, on assessing a value on a septic system, consider maybe valuing the cost of the <br />repair relative to the assessment pending. $1,500 repair versus $37,000 assessment. Somehow <br />that should come into play. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated he would like to hear Council's thoughts on the "due on sale" phrase. <br /> <br />Councilmember Beyer asked for clarification. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich responded that if you are a property owner and you have a functional system, when <br />you sell your property, that property will be assessed at that time. <br /> <br />Councilmember Beyer stated that's an issue the City has usually stayed out of and she suggested <br />the City remain uninvolved. Let the mortgage or title company deal with that. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman felt it was ridiculous that in subdivision 3, if you have a non- <br />functional sewer, you would have to put in both sewer and well. <br /> <br />City Council/October 22, 1996 <br /> Page 9 of 13 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.