Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Menkveld suggested obtaining a 35% cash deposit from developer and assessing <br />65% over a 5 year time period. The developer is not about to lose the land <br />to the City when you consider profit he stands to gain on the improved lots. <br />Make certain City is protected financially but also that it is not a hinderence <br />to development. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich commented that we have to make sure there is not a possibility <br />of City getting into land ownership business. <br /> <br />Council consensus is to leave Cash Deposit on Page 18 worded as is. <br /> <br />Council consensus is to change the last sentence of Item 4 Assessment on <br />page 18 of the proposed ordinance to read as follows: "At the time of the <br />application for a certificate of occupancy." <br /> <br />Council consensus is to change the third sentence of Item 5 Alternative <br />Assessment Procedure on Page 19 to read as follows: "At the time of <br />the application for a certificate of occupancy with respect to any of the <br />lots in the subdivision, the applicant or seller shall pay to the City Finance <br />Department the principal balance of such assessment remaining unpaid together <br />with accrued interest thereon." <br /> <br />Council recessed at 8:32 p.m. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec called the meeting back to order at 8:50 p.m. <br /> <br />Mr. Berg stated that if a storm drainage project was approved and assessments <br />deferred and a parcel owner wanted to sell his property, there would be no <br />pending assessments to be paid because assessments had not actually been <br />levied. <br /> <br />Mr. Fults commented that if a developer requested sewer, it is approved <br />and the project goes in with total cost of trunk being the responsibility <br />of the developer and years later another development wants to be served off <br />that trunk, that would not be fair to first developer who paid for the <br />trunk. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich replied that the developer who paid for the trunk in the first <br />place would be reimbursed. <br /> <br />John Lichter referred to Storm Sewers on Page 24 and stated that dry well <br />might be perfectly acceptable option for storm water handling. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka replied that dry well is only a temporary solution. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schlueter referred to the first paragraph on Page 25 of the <br />proposed ordinance and questionned if the City is referring to condemnation. <br /> <br />Mr. Berg replied that condemnation would be required if the City could not <br />acquire easements, and even without the language contained in the proposed <br />ordinance, the City has power of condemnation for public purposes. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schlueter requested a list of items a benefited homeowner can <br />expect to be assessed for prior to hook-up. <br /> <br />Sp C/March 28, 1983 <br /> Page 11 of 14 <br /> <br /> <br />