06/12/1989 Council Minutes (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

1 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 12, 1989 he would check with the Public Works Director on this matter. Mrs. Anderson is to get back to the resident regarding the fence. Mr. Bisel moved to table agenda items No. 11 and No. 12 to June 26, 1989 at 7:35 and 7:40 P.M. Mayor Benson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bisel moved to table agenda item No. 13 to June 26, 1989 at 7:45 P.M. Mr. Neal seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. PLANNER'S REPORT - JOHN MILLER Discussion on Revision of MUSA Boundary - Mr. Miller and Mr. Stahlberg have been working with residents and discussing options they have regarding sewer availability. The idea is to try and give the residents all the information they need to decided whether or not they would be in a position to decide if sewer was a good idea for their property. The MUSA Boundary was explained to the residents and it was also explained that the City was given a finite amount of land that could be serviced by sewer and the City can move the area somewhat internally. The result is that a questionnaire has been sent out to the people and they have been returned and a map has been developed indicating the results. A meeting with representatives of Metropolitan Council took place last week and the map was presented to them. They will have comments for this City about the map in about two weeks. Mr. Miller explained the color code on the map. Mr. Bisel further explained that for instance the residents in the Lakeview /Sunrise area can tell the City to take them out of the MUSA area and then the City can allocate that acreage to another area where they have requested sewer installation. Some problems could be created for residents along the route to the area which has requested service. Under the current Charter if 51% of the property owners want the service, it could be forced upon them. However under the new amendment if 51% want it, those who do not want the service can petition out of the improvement. Mayor Benson added the other change is that if an improvement project goes bad, it will not be submitted to a referendum. This puts additional burden on the Council to be sure the improvement is correct from the beginning. Mr. Bisel explained further that if the City Engineer and Bond Counsel feel the improvement is not economically feasible, it will not go any further than the feasibility stage. Mrs. Phyllis Blaylock, 6941 Sunrise Drive said that the Council is not telling all of the truth. She said that if a landowner wanted to petition out of an improvement, the Council had the authority to accept or reject the petition. Mayor Benson said that was absolutely not true. Mr. Hawkins 1 5