Laserfiche WebLink
C <br />TELEPHONE 881-2881 <br />mary nderson �h L� <br />A"9p <br />e[tnala+ue raa eelrtnlrvxo. <br />UA"" \M,11bMCdYf11M:IVNIf1 AW <br />/b11YM41 \NIM MUM <br />y1W[Ip�. WIIb11 \NIO <br />October 15, 1986 PWu�" 0 <br />OCT1988 <br />Councilmembers RECEIVED <br />Clerk -Administrator <br />city of Mounds View Of.2401 Highway 10 < MOIMDS%qE! <br />Mounds view, Minnesota 55112 <br />Dear Councilmembers and Clerk -Administrator: <br />Our. Company has been performing residential construction in <br />suburbs in the Twin Cities area for over 34 years. We have been <br />involved in your community for six years with the involvement <br />of the planning for the Silver Lake Woods plat and construction <br />of our. single family and condominium units. It is our company's <br />belief that our work within the various communities in the metro- <br />politan area has been an equally rewarding experience for both <br />the communities involved and our company. I am happy to say that <br />that rewarding experience with regard to Mounds View is true and <br />f 1r 1 f our community also with one exception. That one <br />hope u y o y <br />exception would be the charge known as S.W.M. <br />The S.W.M. charge came originally as a bit of a surprise to <br />both Kraus -Anderson and our company. The project had already <br />received plat approval, improvements were being installed and <br />the first- permits were about to be issued when the S.W.M. (then <br />known as S.D.M.) charge became an issue. It was our understanding <br />at that time that if an improvement went in with the installation <br />of storm sewer with certain specifications that an S.D.M. charge <br />would not be levied or that the assessed value of the storm water <br />improvement would be deducted from any S.D.M. charge calculated.. <br />With the cost of the improvements of the holding pond known as <br />Silver View Park Pond and actual storm sewer improvements would <br />have negated any charge for any S.D.M. for construction on any <br />of the lots. The ordinance was then changed prior to issuance <br />of any building permits to exclude the credit of previous improve- <br />ments. This momentarily put the project in a tail spin, but it <br />was our agreement with Kraus -Anderson to pick up the calculated <br />charge of S.D.M. (now S.W.M.) for the entire project and to gen- <br />erate that .revenue from the construction of the 6-unit condominium <br />buildings. This charge was approximately $8,000 per 8-unit build- <br />ing that was constructed. <br />