Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council April 11, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 8 <br />Mr. Nelson stated that they've been approached multiple times, and there is going to come a • <br />time where they need to make decisions on what they are going to do with their property. He <br />stated it was his suggestion to grant a waiver for the coming year and ask them to come back <br />to report in a year on the status, and hopefully there will be something in front of them to look <br />at by way of a proposal, and they could take another look at it. He didn't feel anybody was <br />going to suffer if there wasn't a connection made for the next year. <br />Council Member Flaherty asked if he was the same Mr. Nelson that was in contact with James <br />HesBurg back in 1994 for this same subject. <br />Mr. Nelson stated it was brought up then, and there was a decision made on behalf of the City <br />not to require the connection at that point. <br />Council Member Flaherty asked if there was any background on what happened. <br />Director Ericson stated that a search had been made of the records, and there is nothing that <br />exists in writing. <br />Council Member Flaherty stated that the issue isn't going to go away, and it's been 11 years <br />since it was first brought up. <br />Council Member Gunn stated it was seven years ago. <br />Council Member Flahe stated that Mr. Nelson was involved for the ast 11, and it oes • <br />rty p g <br />back to 1986. He stated there is a lot of correspondence over the years saying they need <br />to hook up to sewer and water. He stated he's sure the water is clean and the wells are working <br />fine, but the City Code was specifically drawn up for the betterment of the City to make things <br />like this don't get out of hand. He stated he was curious what happened in the previous 11 years. <br />He asked if they thought the City was going to go away. <br />Mr. Nelson stated that the issue of 11 years going by without the issue being raised indicates <br />an agreement was reached in 1994 not to require it. If there had been a requirement it had to be <br />done within the next month or a year, that would have triggered some action from the City. <br />Council Member Thomas asked Mr. Ericson how many other properties had been required to <br />connect up to the sewer since this Code was in place in 1992. <br />Director Ericson stated there were 20 or 30 properties that had to be connected as a result of <br />the 1992 ordinance, and this is the one remaining property that does not have access to sewer and <br />water. He stated there are five other properties in the City where they don't have access to <br />sewer or water, and the Code does grant an exception for that. <br />MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn. To move on Option No. 3. <br />Council Member Thomas stated she believed they need to offer some time for this simply to • <br />