Minutes - Charter Commission - 04/18/1996

Home

Case #3: Petition for Proposed Charter Amendment City Administrator Schroeder stated that this is a second petition for a special election received in the last year. The first one was in May, 1995, and this one was received in February, 1996. This represents a level of dissatisfaction between urban and rural land uses. He used the Haubrich Addition as an example of what can happen and showed the summary of the final impact on both ends of this kind of issue plus the final impact if the rural properties are subdivided. He believes, at present, this petition only impacts properties within the MUSA. There are currently 443 rural lots within the MUSA. In the future, MUSA expansions would likely result in additional properties being impacted. City Council has been dealing with this issue but they were not able to come to a complete consensus on how to handle the issue of rural encroaching on urban. Last October, City Council deliberated over what to do in cases such as the Haubrich Addition wherein public improvement assessments will appear excessive if subdivision of property does not occur. Proposed was a liberalization of existing utility system connection requirements in cases where private systems are relatively new. A primary concern at that time was that if a perpetual deferral of assessments was put into place, who would be relegated to the position of providing for the cost. Council was unable to agree on a policy, and such occurrence led to this petition. Chairperson Steffen stated that it seems we are proceeding now how we did with a prior petition that went to an election. We did not create a special meeting because we had one scheduled in a time frame appropriate. Terry Hendriksen, 15631 Ramsey Boulevard NW, Ramsey, stated he did not intend to do a formal presentation. He noted the third line in the case which suggests the petition is to slow the urbanization of Ramsey. He suggested it is to make urbanization fairer to current residents and protect their rights - not only the rights of the developers. What focused attention on this is the unfairness of the current policy. The events on 151st showed the unfairness. He noted the hardship this assessment would be for one of the residents, a 72 year old man with a pace maker. The City is under the assumption this man wants to subdivide his property. His two neighbors did want to and this is blatantly unfair to those who do not want to. We hope to correct this situation with this petition. These types of issues were discussed in front of the City Council. The residents begged the City for some relief and no empathy was shown whatsoever. Even when they asked to defer the assessment - they did not receive any relief on that point. Mr. Hendriksen found that offensive. He stated that he did nothing at that point because Councilmember Zimmerman asked for a fairer way to handle this matter. Council had an opportunity to come up with a fairer way and when they did nothing, he (Hendriksen) decided he would go forward with a fairer way himself. Number 1: the Council cannot force anyone to hook up that doesn't want it - assuming the system is functional. Number 2: If someone chooses not to hook up, why should they be assessed. Let people who wanted it pay for it. When the gas company brings gas to a subdivision, if not a sufficient amount of people want it, they do not do it. That makes more sense than forcing people to hook up. Number 3: Assuming that if the project goes forward, that there m'e sufficient numbers, if a person chooses to hook up at a later date, they can in an amount consistent with what the others paid. Mr. Hendriksen referred again to the case sheet where Mr. Schroeder has written that a perpetual deferral of assessments impacts an apparent 443 households and $6 million in costs. He stated he (Hendriksen) looks at it from the other side. If the City insists on the extension of sewer and water to who do not want it, the City is assessing $6 million to pass. He felt that should happen. If it happens, then he felt the City could afford $6 million more readily than the 443 residents. He feels the process is absolutely correct and added that he would like to respond to questions the Commission may have. Chairperson Steffen noted that the petition talks about functional sewer/well and asked who declares whether or not it's functional. Mr. Hendriksen replied that City ordinances would define that. Charter Commission/April 18, 1996 Page 3 of 8