03/13/85 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I Mayor Beitman proceeded to explain Mr. Data's alternative method in approximate n~nbers as follows: ~he total cost of the project is $234,000; the cost to satisfy the developer's needs in Fltntwood II, excluding that additional area the City is requesting being added to the project, is $151,000; that leaves a r~nainder of $82,000; by ~arter, the City can participate in the cost of installation to 20% ($43,000); that leaves a remainder of $39,000; the 190 units proposed for Flinb~ood II should be added to the 43 existing units in Flintwood I as they will be a part of Watershed District ~43; total units would then be 9.33 and that $39,000 should be distributed among those 233 units; there would then be a $19-0-$140 assessment per unit rather than $784 per unit; in addition, the City's 9.0% participation amounts to $16 per City resident. Mayor l~eitman stated that the public hearing has been held and the 60 day clock is running and he would like to see an amiable solution before an opposing petition is submitted and the project is shut down. John Lichter - Stated that if the City would adopt Mr. Data's proposed alternat/ve, a majority of the citizens in Flintwood I would not oppose the project. Mr. Lichter also stated that there are some situations that Oouncil should be aware of that lend credence to the City participating 20% in the project (Dst: 1) existing drainage is from water upstream and upstream areas are not proposed to be assessed; 2) the project is necessary for P.U.D. development and the City has resolved that P.U.D. 's are in the City's best interest for tax base; 3) City stands to gain significant benefit and therefore should participate in the cost of the storm drainage project. Mayor Beitman suggested that a more speCific proposal be prepared and reviewed by Council and affected residents. Councilmember Cox stated that Council should first discuss whether or not it is appropriate for the City to participate in the project cost prior to expending monies for engineering time to prepare another proposal; suggested that participating in project cost could set a precedence. Mayor Reitman replied that it would only be a precedence if you choose to view it that way and is the City allowing develolm~nt of land which should not have been oonsidered for building on at this point in time, but now we are con~i tted? Mr. Goodrich stated that by law, the City is not bound if they participate by 20% in this case. Councilmember Cox noted that this is the Citizen Input portion of the agenda and this storm sewer project should be added to this or a following Council agenda for discussion. Motion by Councilmember Cox and seconded by Councilmember Sorteberg to place 'Discussion Of Assessment Methods For Storm Drainage Improvement Project %85-1 Watershed District #43' on the Council agenda as Case ~5.H. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reitman, Councilpersons Cox, Sorteberg, Schlueter and Reimann. Voting No: None. February 9.6, 1985 Page 7 of 26