09/24/1984 Council Minutes (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

006 Council Meeting September 24, 1984 Page -2- Mayor Benson felt that the present code did not create enough of a problem to consider a change at this time. This information should be kept on file and White Bear Animal Control should be told to be more prudent and less restrictive. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION # 84 -25 (RICE LAKE AREA UTILITIES) (Resolution #84 -25 can be found on page 279 (August 13 Council Meet- ing) of the permanent Council minutes book. Mr. Kulaszewicz read portions of letters submitted by Glenn Rehbein Excavating and Ulmer Construction stating they would post letters of credit for their own assessments but could not give letters of credit on the trunk line. They felt the City had some obligation as far as the trunk line was concerned. In light of what happened three years ago, he felt he could not support Resolution #84 -25. Mr. Reinert felt this situation is different than three years ago. This is not a mandatory situation, if someone did not want to hook up to this line they did not have to and would not be assessed. This Council has handled this project differently. There were plenty of public meetings. This proposed trunk line will be paid as people hook up to it, there will be no cost to the City. The City will bond and assess only those who hook up to the line. Mr. Marier asked what are the projected development plans of the five developers. He felt not knowing what the development rate would be, the City would not know howiong they will have to be bankers. He would like to know the projected growth. Mayor Benson suggested that maybe the Resolution encompassed too large an area. He also felt we should not cut back without looking at the prison. Two of the developers are ready to go now. Maybe the Resolu- tion could be contingent upon receiving plans and specifications from the builders and time frames for the necessary payments through the developers agreement. Mr. Marier said he had a problem with the 35 %letter of credit. Mr. Schumacher said the developers letters listed two concerns; 1) concern of the letters of credit for the trunk line, 2) concern of developers paying for cost of the trunk and at a later date a nearby parcel of property coming to the trunk line and getting a large benefit and not paying for the up front costs. The City Attorney had said this concern could be worked out so the five original developers could recoup some of their costs. Mr. John Juleen from the audience felt this proposal is the same proposal as three years ago. He was concerned about who would pay the bond if the developers could not. He also felt that people now living in Lino Lakes would be forced to hook up. 1