Laserfiche WebLink
signed. The l~ate~h~ain size and charge was discussed and since the development agreement has <br />been signed, h~ fe~ls this is not a timely objection. <br />Mr. Knutson istatCd he had been told he would be assessed for an 8" main on Sunfish Lake <br />Boulevard N;W. ~d part of Krypton Street N.W., but not on Helium Lane N.W. He added that <br />the feasibility ~stucly says a 6" watermain will be constructed along Helium Lane ,,N,.W. He stated <br />the developm6nt agreement states an 8" watermain would be charged where a 12 line would be <br />put in but it 81Ioul~ not have been on Helium Lane N.W. He stated he has voiced his objection to <br />this all the Wa~ thi. ough. He added he has no problem with an 8" main on Krypton Street N.W. <br /> r <br />Mr. Schroede$ stated that at the meeting of May 12, 1992, there were three representatives of the <br />development~a~and two City representatives and the message he (Mr. Schroeder) received was <br />that the issue was .~ettled at an 8" main. <br /> ? <br />Councilmem~er l~eyer inquired of Mr. Knutson if he ever agreed to an 8" main to which Mr. <br />Knutson reph~ he did not. <br /> <br />Mayor Gilbe~tson inquired why Mr. Knutson signed the development agreement if he was <br />opposed to th~ 8" ~,atermain to which Mr. Knutson replied "so he could proceed with the project". <br /> <br />Mr. Knutson~ Statext this is an assessment hearing, if he has to be assessed, he feels it should be <br />assessed for a ~6" main because that is all that is needed in that area. The feasibility study called for <br />a 6" main on Iteliflm and he stated he feels very strongly about that. <br /> <br />Mayor Gilbertsom stated that Mr. Knutson signed the development agreement knowing he would <br />be assessed f~ anj 8" main. <br /> <br />Mr. Knutson ~tat{d he knew he would be assessed for an 8" main on Sunfish Lake Boulevard <br />N.W. and I~,pto~ Street N.W. but not on Helium Lane N.W. There are lateral benefits so the <br />City would ntlt halve as much cost. <br /> <br />Councilmernl:ler Beyer stated the assessment should be put back to the amount for a 6" main since <br />~t ~nltlally stat~ tliat ~n the feasibility study. <br /> <br />Councilmem~r Zimmerman stated that since Helium Lane N.W. was parallel with County Road <br />#5, a 6" main ~sho~ld be sufficient. <br /> <br />Councilmernb~r Hardin questioned why an 8" main was put in. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankows~ stated an 8" main was needed. <br /> <br />Mr. Knutson Otated the City is proposing they would assess trunk sewer and water charges against <br />all propertie~ {13~ lots). He thought the charges would be per residential unit created and when he <br />signed the de~telOpment agreement 32 lots were created and he assumed it meant he would be <br />assessed for l~e 3,~ lots. About a month or two later, 16 more lots were developed which made it a <br />total of 48 10~s a~d he felt that's all he should be assessed for. He stated it was for the first and <br />second addifi6ns that he signed the agreement for. He stated he was shocked when he realized the <br />assessment w~ulc[i be on the whole development. <br />City Adminis~rat0r Schroeder stated that in June 1991, Council authorized proceeding with the <br />$1.2 million~'fiubl|c improvement project. Upon assessing the costs of the improvement projects <br />for Chestnut~ill~, Windemere Woods, Chestnut Ponds, etc., every resolution stated that the Cit[ <br />would be agS{ssii~g the $1.2 million against the benefitting properties. He stated this shouldnt <br />have been a s,~rpflse to Mr. Knutson. <br /> <br /> Pu§lic Hearing Improvment Projects/City Council/October 13, 1992 <br /> ~; ' Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />