Minutes - Council - 12/10/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Hendriksen responded to Mayor Hardin, telling him he (Hardin) has not dealt with this issue fairly. Mayor Hardin stated the ordinance proposed is trying to deal with everything. The amendment did not deal with any provisionary issues. We are trying to deal with the amendment. If you have some ideas on how it should be attained, let us know. We are forced to deal with it. Mr. Hendriksen stated we had two Charter amendments in the City. The majority of City Council dealt with citizens in a heavy handed way. You extended the MUSA and did not have a public hearing until two months after the expansion. That's a sham. You allowed empty lots to vote. You did not mind the people on 151st who asked for a development moratorium. You did not mind a 72-year old man with a heart condition and pace maker. Mayor Hardin stated that 50% of the property owners requested this. Mr. Hendriksen stated the rest of the affected residents came and asked for an extension to a requirement to hook up. Mayor Hardin stated that he made a motion that it should go 10 to 12 years and that motion did not pass. The minutes should reflect that. Mr. Hendriksen referred to Section 5. He did not believe transfer of property waives property owners rights to continue on that functional system. You are looking at it from the standpoint that the City wants our money. This is not a good faith effort to amend the Charter. This is to collect an assessment you are not entitled to. What if someone were transferred out of town, or what about a death in the family? What about employment problems ~ that person could not afford to pay the assessment. What about people finding themselves in a situation where the equity in their home is less than the assessment? They could be forced into bankruptcy. These are real issues. The only thing some of you folks are looking at is getting money sooner. That's not what the Charter amendment is about. With regard to the availability charge - he found that very disturbing and not a good faith effort. The sewer and water get extended primarily because someone wants to make a profit. The sewer and water in the Haubrich Addition got extended because two people wanted to make a profit. People should not have to subsidize a for profit endeavor. Wayne Olson, 5830 - 151st Lane NW, Ramsey, found it hard to disagree with points made. We should be looking at the original intent of the Charter. Are the changes consistent with what the people really voted for? If you add a $64 charge, is that what the people really voted for? He did not think so. Did they want to be forced to hook up if they sell their property. He did not think so. We had quite a voter turnout with a vast majority voting for the amendment. It passed by a three to one margin. We have to ask if this is consistent with the original intent of the Charter the way people voted. The recommendations he has seen are not consistent with the original intent of the Charter. People are saying they want the original intent of that Charter. Fred Mertens, 7404 - 149th Avenue NW, Ramsey, stated he is aggravated with the arrogance on the part of Ramsey's elected officials. They are paid to be our servants and this is 100% wrong. As I think about the Charter amendment, this is all about growth. Growth is good and industry is good. He stated he would love a short distance to work. We need industry and growth. People thought about that when they voted on the Charter amendment. The referendum was not anti- growth. It was the people saying they are not able to pay any more. It's taking money from people against their will; that's taxation. The people who reap profit should be the ones who pay. Developers should have to pay for it. Why should I be assessed so he could be subsidized and make a profit. It's not a function of the people or the government to subsidize developers. You are about meeting needs. I cannot afford to subsidize someone and have a $10,000 loss on my City Council/December 10, 1996 Page 10 of 25