Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Hendriksen stated he is not contending "availability". <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that the fact that sewer and water pipes are on one's property doesn't make <br />sewer and water available to that property. We have trunk mains that do not hook up to residential <br />property. Availability means they can readily hook up. Many properties have trunks but we <br />would not let them hook up. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen referred to Section 4, Subdivision 1. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that City Council has said that Subdivision 1 is a little harsh. He read the <br />alternative. It means if you have a sewer and/or water system that doesn't work, and it will cost <br />50% or more to repair the system, you will need to hook up to City sewer and water. This is an <br />attempt to define when the property needs to hook up. A previously functional private system <br />should be deemed non-repairable if it first requires a permit. That was the first language. City <br />Council said just about anything requires a permit so we changed that to 50% of the cost. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen stated that an individual may want to pro-actively improve his system before his <br />system fails. He felt that a person is entitled to do that. This would force an individual to live with <br />degraded systems because of pending assessments. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich noted that was a good point and that this should be discussed more. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen asked if it will be a running total of repairs, or do you spend so much in one year <br />and so much in another year. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich responded no, a one-time repair that exceeds 50% of either water or sewer. If you <br />have a water system (well and pump) and it costs more than 50% to repair it, you would have to <br />hook up to City water. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen pointed to Section 5 versus 8.6.2 of the Charter amendment. The key to that is <br />we will deal with a property with a functional system. As owner of that property, at some instant <br />in time, that homestead becomes a possession or property of someone else. That person now is <br />sitting with a functional sewer and water system and should have rights under 8.6.2. The transfer <br />should not waive rights under the Charter. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that there really is the opportunity for the City to require these hook-ups. <br />They would have to hook up with the sale. So, when someone sells their home, they cannot really <br />say there is not an assessment pending. Always when property is transferred, calls will be made to <br />see if there are special assessments pending or levied. In this instance, there could be an <br />assessment, there is something pending. If we report that as a certification, that potentially is there <br />for the property to have to hook up to City utilities. To avoid that, if we just say they will be doing <br />their own sale administratively, that goal will be accomplished. This Charter amendment is for the <br />people who have sewer and water run by them now. That's why the public voted on it. We will <br />honor that vote. But people coming into the City now did not vote on that and did not participate. <br />We felt that would be fair. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen stated he talked to a man who said the City is treating residents like naughty <br />children because they did something the City didn't like so now they are "taking away their toys". <br />You are saying this is for the City's convenience, so it can administer this better. Suppose <br />someone with a new home will have to get transferred. He has a good expensive system and he <br />will be forced to hook up before he can sell his home. <br /> <br />Mayor Hardin asked Mr. Hendriksen to please try to stick with the points and address <br />specifications. <br /> <br />City Council/December 10, 1996 <br /> Page 9 of 25 <br /> <br /> <br />