06-06-1994 CC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council minutes June 6, 1994 . Page 7 e three-quarters of a mile to serve the County Administration Building. The improvements also include the extension of trunk storm sewer along the same alignment. The feasibility includes the proposed extension of storm drainage, lateral utilities, and new urban street construction within the Sandpiper Estates Subdivision. Mayor Duitsman indicated the Council would be interested in receiving input from the residents in Sandpiper Estates regarding this project. Mayor Duitsman questioned whether it would be in the City's best interest to extend the parkway from City Hall to Joplin. He indicated his concern regarding the cost of a parkway and the number of trees that would have to be removed to build a parkway versus a road. COUNCILMEMBER FARBER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 94-63, A RESOLUTION RECEIVING THE FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ORDERING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE MATTER OF THE WESTERN AREA 2ND PHASE TRUNK SANITARY SEWER, WATER, STORM WATER, AND STREET, IMPROVEMENTS OF 1994. COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. COUNCILMEMBERFARBER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 94-64, A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IN THE MATTER OF THE WESTERN AREA 2ND PHASE TRUNK SANITARY SEWER, WATER, STORM SEWER, AND STREET IMPROVEMENT OF 1994. COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5"0. e 7.7. Update on storm water manaoement impact fee City Engineer Terry Maurer indicated that the City has sent letters to seven developers in the City requesting input on a potential stormwater impact fee. He indicated that the letter was sent in early May and that he has received no comment from any of the developers. Mr. Maurer indicated that he assumes no response to the letter to be a sign that the developers are not opposed to the proposed impact fee. Terry Maurer explained that the proposed storm water impact fee would be charged to all developing properties at rates estimated to be $600 per acre for nonresidential property; $100 per lot for urban residential developments and $50 per lot for rural residential developments. Councilmember Farber indicated that he is opposed to the fee as he feels the developers in Elk River are charged too many fees. Council member Scheel indicated her concern regarding the homeowners paying their fair share of the fee. Councilmember Holmgren indicated his support of the fee as the City currently has drainage problems which must be addressed. e Mayor Duitsman indicated his support of the fee as the developers are paying their fair share with this fee system.