Laserfiche WebLink
Attorney Goodrich stated that 8.6.2 talks about functional. If an owner petitioned earlier for a <br />project and, when it comes time for the assessment hearing, does that owner have the option to say <br />they now do not want it because their system is functional. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen replied that City Council should get a sworn statement from these individuals. It <br />would obligate them to go forward. <br /> <br />Attorney Goodrich stated so when a petition comes in, we at the City might advise that those <br />signing should agree to waive their rights. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen stated that the City Council always has the opportunity to refuse. <br /> <br />Commissioner Donovan inquired if any other City deals with projects this way. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen believed that this is the policy in Andover. <br /> <br />Attorney Goodrich reminded Mr. Hendriksen that Andover is not a Charter city. <br /> <br />Chairperson Steffen stated that he heard a statement on cable television where Mr. Hendriksen <br />stated he wanted this as a special election so the voters interested in it would vote on it. He had <br />trouble seeing this as not affecting the entire City. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen agreed that it does have some effect on everyone but to varying degrees. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued pertaining to all residents being affected by having to pay for improvements due <br />to non-assessment. <br /> <br />Chairperson Steffen inquired if Mr. Hendriksen does not particularly want the whole City to vote <br />on this. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen stated he would like a special election because he would like this resolved in a <br />timely manner as outlined in the legislature. If this election is held as a special election, people <br />who have informed themselves and go to vote, will make a more considered choice. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder talked about assessment projects. For instance, if there is a water and sewer project <br />done along a gravel road and now the road is paved as a result of this project, does this say there <br />should not be an assessment for the road to those who did not petition for the sewer and water <br />project. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen answered that this proposed amendment does not fully address all the things that <br />Mr. Schroeder is asking. The Charter never addresses all the details. He suspected the City would <br />do an honest job in assessing people for things they receive benefit from. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder stated but because the storm water pipe is not the same project as the sanitary sewer <br />pipe, it is not you intention to direct that the property owner can avoid assessment for the storm <br />pipe. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen stated that things necessitated by sewer and water should not be assessed for. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder stated that we will have projects where we will have to figure out what the intent it. <br />He thought Mr. Hendriksen said that the expenses for water pipe and sewer pipe if this passes the <br />City cannot assess against a person who is not in favor of the sewer and water, but if it involves <br />other than that, then the City can prove benefit and they can assess for that. <br /> <br />Charter Commission/April 18, 1996 <br /> Page 5 of 8 <br /> <br /> <br />