Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 27, 1990 <br />assessment contained charges for curbs, gutters and storm <br />sewers. Mr. Schneider said no because none of these <br />improvements were made on Linda Avenue or Laurene Avenue. <br />The Storm Water Management charges were included in her <br />assessment since this charge will at a later date provide <br />drainage for the entire area to Baldwin Lake providing a <br />direct benefit to her property. <br />Mr. Herb Schoen, 220 - 16th Avenue, New Brighton presented a <br />letter to the Council outlining his concerns and objections. <br />Mr. Hawkins explained that the letters from Mr. Vickers and <br />Mr. Schoen were not in the form of an appeal but rather <br />questions relating to the assessment. <br />Mr. Paul Zak, 6238 Laurene Avenue explained that his <br />calculation did not add up to his proposed assessment and he <br />wanted to reserve his right to appeal the assessment. Mr. <br />Schneider explained that he was being assessed. The figures <br />quoted to him were provided in case he wanted to connect to <br />the services at this time. Mr. Zak is not being assessed and <br />will not have a pending assessment. <br />Mr. Schneider explained that a portion of the costs are not <br />being assessed at this time. The residents along the trunk <br />lines were assured that if they did not want to connect they <br />would not be assessed. The developers are not assessed any <br />costs that would be attributed to these residents. In the <br />future, when these residents wish to connect to services, <br />this assessment will be updated based on the annual ENR. <br />Mr. Schneider explained the reason for the Storm Wate4- <br />Drainage costs. These costs provide properties with ern <br />water outlets. He also explained that right -of -ways costs <br />are project costs and are normally charged back to th- - <br />improvement project and not to the specific property - ir,er <br />from where the easement came. Mr. Hawkins noted that <br />properties involved here had no intention of developi at <br />the time the easements were needed. It would not be r to <br />take the easement and then assess the cost of acquis n. <br />Mr. Hawkins referred to the request from the develop of <br />Rohavic Oaks, Second Addition to waive the letter of dit. <br />He noted that this is a matter of policy and it is s ity <br />in the event that the developer misses one or more p rty <br />tax payments. <br />Mr. Schoen said he wanted it noted that he objects t, . <br />letter of credit requirement and to the other land o <br />being paid for the right -of -way taken from them. <br />Mr. Vickers noted that it was explained to him that . and <br />his partners requested compensation for the right -of- <br />taken from them, then this cost would be added to tht:::_, <br />PAGE 7 <br />1 <br />