Laserfiche WebLink
042 <br />COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 8, 1990 <br />It was planned that the utilities would be installed in the <br />boulevard along side of the blacktop. There would be no cost <br />to the City nor the residents on the west side of Sunrise <br />Drive. There were several problems with this proposal. <br />Various other proposal were submitted by the developer. The <br />latest proposal appears to be the most acceptable. It meets <br />all City standards and would allow the residents on the west <br />side of Sunrise Drive to connect to the utilities if they <br />wish. The basic cost to these residents would be the same as <br />for the lots on Sunrise that faced Sunrise Meadows. The <br />material has been sent to Mr. Hawkins for his review and <br />comment. <br />The total cost of this improvement would be $92,389.42 of <br />which the City would be responsible for $36,563.80. The City <br />could then assess this cost back to each of the ten (10) lots <br />along the west side of Sunrise Drive as they connect to the <br />services. The assessment for each of the lot owners on the <br />west side of Sunrise Drive including area and unit charges, <br />surface water management charges and street restoration would <br />be approximately the same as the assessment for the lot <br />owners south of this improvement. <br />Mayor Bisel asked that each of the lot owners on the west <br />side of Sunrise Drive be notified of the pending improvements <br />and asked if they wish to connect at this time. The lot <br />owner would not be assessed until he petitioned for <br />connection to the utility services. It was noted that the VA <br />and FHA may require the homes on the west side of Sunrise <br />Drive to connect to the services if the home is sold. It was <br />also noted that the availability of sewer and water <br />connections increased the value of the home. <br />Mr. Schumacher recommended that if the Council did approve <br />this proposal, the $21,498.00 needed to reimburse the <br />developer of Sunnygate, Second Addition be taken from the SAC <br />Charges fund. <br />Council Member Kuether asked if the assessment would increase <br />if the homeowner connected to the service in five (5) years <br />rather now at the time of construction. Mr. Schneider <br />explained the assessment would increase using the Engineering <br />New Record Cost Index. <br />Council Member Neal moved to approve Option No. 1 and accept <br />the proposal of the developer as outlined in Mr. Schneider's <br />letter to Mr. John Peterson dated September 26, 1990 and to <br />put language in the development agreement regarding the <br />reasons for the twenty four (24) foot street width. Council <br />Member Bohjanen seconded the motion. On a roll call vote, <br />motion carried unanimously. <br />ATTORNEY'S REPORT - BILL HAWKINS <br />PAGE 2 <br />