Laserfiche WebLink
<br />COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Mr. Christoffersen, why did we not <br />assess anything south of Red Fox Road? <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Because those properties - there are <br />two properties that are developed and have sewer. A portion <br />of that property has a storm water detention basin on it. <br />We could not visibly see any potential further connection to <br />those properties - they already have the sewer benefit, which <br />they have paid for. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Mr. Daubney said it would have <br />been cheaper to run a force main all the way - bypass Reiling's <br />property. <br /> <br />MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That was in the original proposal. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Was that cheaper? <br /> <br />MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Why didn't we do that? <br /> <br />MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The proposal was to run gravity <br />sewer as far as possible, for the same reason that it was run <br />to the east of this existing north/south line. There was a <br />sanitary sewer running to the east of that, which Mr. Reiling <br />was assessed for, I believe, under the Red Fox Road improve- <br />ment, and which is also being used on the east end. This is <br />a similar situation on the west side - there is a potential <br />for gravity use. This is the approximate location, I assume <br />(using Mr. Reiling's map), of the existing sewer line going <br />north and south. When Red Fox Road was constructed, the <br />sanitary sewer was constructed to the east, which was assessed. <br />We also practiced the same thing in this direction - taking <br />one as far as we could to the west - on the premise that this <br />property was divided and there are two parcels using the <br />sewer (inaudible). If this was divided the other direction, <br />there certainly would be a use for that sanitary sewer - <br />that gravity sewer. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MR. DAUBNEY: Mr. Christoffersen, if this property had <br />previously been developed and parcel 7 was serviced off the <br />proposed north/south road on the west side of the horseshoe - <br />if that were developed as the property to the south is <br />developed - would you still have recommended an assessment <br />of 700 feet, even though the owner and user of that lot <br />wasn't going to hook into the sewer on Red Fox Road? I'm <br />asking you to make that assumption here because that's what <br />you're doing on everyone of these assessments. You're making <br />an assumption as to benefits. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: Except, Jack - and I think you're going <br />too far and I'd instruct him not to answer that - because <br />it's an entirely different set of facts than what we have <br />here right now. <br /> <br />-7- <br />