Laserfiche WebLink
r~TVtt~•rs <br />Ci.Cy Counctil <br />F'<,b. 8 , 19£34 <br />Cub 6deiCer. The Attorney stated that i.n Che joi.nt powers a~;reement the City w~i.l.l. <br />Connecti.on cover Che fact that t:.he Ci.ty of Li-ttle Canada Loi_1.1. assiune ownershi.p <br />(Coni:.) for I;hat coaterline unl.ess t~laplewood does. <br />~~1r. Glanzer reported that the Ci.ty has never hac( a pay baclc clause on <br />~ny projecC i.n I~:i.tCl.e Canada. 6dhen a waterll.ne was compl.eCed, it was <br />always t;iarned over t:o t.:he Ci.ty. <br />Paliey commented that i.n that way f.utur.e development, got the benefi.t: <br />of. previ.ous deveJ.opment. Pahey state~l Chat he was noC pr.epared to <br />cllange cahat ltas been done in t}~e City. <br />Mr. Glanz.e,r report:ed that tllere is no fuCUre devel.opment ].eft:. on the <br />L~i.ttle Canada si.de adjacenC to the Ct~b 12-i.nc'~ mai.n that would rieecl <br />thi,s s:i.ze m~,in. Tf the 1.9.ne is turned over to Li.ttle Canada, Cub's <br />oo~nershi_p sCOps at: thei.r propert:y li.ne. <br />Glanzer pointed ouc t:hat. i.f someone wanCS t:o connect in the baclc of <br />the Cub proper.ty, they would need permi.ssi.on from Li.t:tl.e Canada Co <br />connect and they would have to worlc out an agreement ~vi.th Cub to cross <br />their propert:y. <br />`4r. Gleinzer po~ini:ed out that the C:ity's ord-1..n~nce staCes that that <br />main can only serve the Cub prop~rty. At a f.uture date if~ the l.i.ne <br />~aere to eatend, the CiCy woulcl have to talce an easement over the <br />Cub property. <br />P1r. '~orsberg fe1C that Ghe City should 1et Cub worry about ~ahat wi11 <br />liapp~n at Che enc( o,f. thci.r waterl.i.ne. <br />Mr. P~hey stated t:hat it would seem f~i.r to him t:hat Cub and a new <br />propert:y owner woul.d a;re2 to an a~mount for the extention of, Cub's <br />line~ and Che Ci.ty would not ~~~xtend t}~ie line unCi.l thi_s amount was <br />agreed to. <br />`Che AtCOrney ~oi.nCed ouC that at the south end of the mai.n Littl.e <br />Canada woulcl col.l.ect a connect:ion char~;e whi.ch woul.d be paid to I,i.ttle <br />Canada and wil.l not i.nvoJ.ve the repayment for the cost of the main. <br />Fahey pointed out that: any reimbursement for the main cvoul.d be a <br />devel.opers' agreement between Cub and the new devel.oper. Fahey stated <br />that the City could gi.ve the policy star_emenC Chat the Cit:y wil.l. <br />cooper.aCe in Chis. <br />Mr. Glanzer. commented that I.i.tt:l.e Canad'a's oroblem stops at the property <br />li.ne. <br />Glanzer poi.nted out thaC the Ci.ty o~ St. Paul and Maplewood have an <br />agreement o~hereby St. Paiul. does al.l. the ~uatntenance of Mapl.ewood aater <br />system at Maplewood's expense. Glanzer stated that the Ci.ty may leC <br />Ma~lewood net the easements and thexi the <;i.ty would deal. witt~ them. <br />Page -9- <br />