Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of Regular Council Meeting <br />August 29, 1983 <br />Page Three <br /> <br />Matter was deferred to the September 12th Council meeting. <br /> <br />Status Report - New Brlqhton Interceptor <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Christoffersen reported that a representative of the Metropolitan Councl I <br />contacted him urging Arden HI lis to proceed with the feasibility study for the <br />proposed connection to the New Brighton intereeptor. <br /> <br />Christoffersen displayed a transparency showing the "tJI.C. District" that Is <br />proposed to drain to the Interceptor; another transparency showed the proposed <br />immediate assessment area, indicating some areas of assessment duplication. <br /> <br />A thrrd transparency listed the estimated cost at $559,000 (1984 costs including <br />engineering), and possible areas for assessment: <br /> <br />35 Acres @ $800/Ac <br />3.400 front feet @ $35/ft <br /> <br />$ 28,000 <br />119,000 <br /> <br />Remaining District N.C. <br /> <br />86 Acres @ $800/Ac <br />1,430 units @ $240/unlt <br />100% Assessed <br /> <br />. 68,800 <br />343.200 <br />$559,000 <br /> <br />In discussion, Christoffersen noted that the N.C. District has not paid for an <br />outlet, but portions were assessed for sanitary sewer In Improvements 12 and 13; <br />some had area charges and some had front foot charges. <br /> <br />Another alternative suggested was to spread the cost on general taxes; similar <br />to the water tower, which wll I serve the whole City. <br /> <br />Christoffersen explained that Metro Councl I wants an idea of how the City eX~ects <br />to fund the project; suggested that Council order a feasibility study and hold a <br />public hearing. <br />"If <br />Hicks moved, seconded by Christiansen, that Council adopt Resolution No. 83-~, <br />RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE NEW BRIGHTON <br />INTERCEPTOR PROJECT. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> <br />(Christoffersen was requested to check on possibi Ilty of Federal funding) <br /> <br />Resolution No. 83-40, Resolution Opposing an Increase in the Number of Managers <br />for the Rice Creek Watershed District <br /> <br />.PIC<.) <br />Christiansen moved, seconded by Hicks, that Councl I adopt Resolution No. 83-~~ <br />RESOLUTION OPPOSING AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF MANAGERS FOR THE RICE CREEK <br />WATERSHED DISTRICT. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> <br />Committee Volunteers <br /> <br />Councl I was referred to memo from McNiesh listing names of Committee volunteers. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Counci I concurred to defer additional committee appointments untl I 1984 appoint- <br />ments are made. <br /> <br />REPORT OF VILLAGE TREASURER DONALD LAMB <br /> <br />Investment <br /> <br />6/29/83 - $108,984.80 at First Federal @ 10.20% interest, to mature 2/29/84. <br /> <br />Hicks moved, seConded by Christiansen, to ratify the Treasurer's investment. <br />Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> <br />OTHER JilUS I NESS <br /> <br />Application for Bulldlnq Permit for Geodesic Home In Chatham Development <br /> <br /> <br />COlmc11 was referred to Zehm's memo (8-26-83). <br /> <br /> <br />Council noted its previous Interpretation of the Special Use Permit for the Chatham <br /> <br />Planned Unit Development and referred the Bui Iding Permit application to Building <br />.Inspector Squires to handle administratively. <br /> <br />-3- <br />