Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Park & Recreation Commission Minutes <br />December 13, 2000 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />stated that good water pressure is important and that providing less than good <br />service is a disservice to Elk River city customers. <br /> <br />Utilities Commissioner James Tralle spoke to his concern regarding locating the <br />water tower in the park. He stated that the need for the tower is a result of the <br />development and that if the developer objects to the location of the tower in the <br />park, the developer should be willing to assist the Utilities Commission in finding a <br />less objectionable site. Mr. Tralle stated that he was open to other options: <br />however, there are consequences to other options including timing and risk <br />factors. He stated that the Utilities may be required to impose restrictions on use <br />of water if a tower is not built in the recommended time frame. <br /> <br />Mr. Don Patten, representing D.R. Horton provided the Commission with some <br />background regarding discussions in early June 2000, regarding a need to <br />provide a water tower in the area. At that time, it was his understanding that the <br />tower would be located in Hillside City Park, south of County Road No. 12. Mr. <br />Patten stated that the developer has contributed to the community: land, money <br />and grading in regards to parks. They have also paid their assessments in cash. <br /> <br />Chair Kuester asked Mr. Patten what solution was he offering and what he could <br />bring to the table in terms of resolving the issue of locating the tower in a city <br />park. <br /> <br />Mr. Tralle asked Mr. Patten if a developer could donate land either in the existing <br />development, or in future developments for which he is currently negotiating. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Zabee stated that compromise is good, however. he did not feel that they <br />could compromise the time line in order to delay a decision any further. He <br />stated he would be agreeable to pay slightly more in order to obtain a site to <br />place the water tower. <br /> <br />Chair Kuester asked Mr. Adams if the Deschene site would be work or, in the case <br />of Site 6, the developer indicated that title to that property would be available <br />shortly. Mr. Adams stated that Site 8, the Deschene property, would not work well <br />hydraulically, especially with the well located directly adjacent to the tower. He <br />stated that currently, even with the soil borings that have been taken, if the <br />project were bid in January 2001, the tower would not be operational until June <br />of 2002. If an additional month is necessary to take soil borings and the project is <br />not bid until February 2001, the tower would not be available until September <br />2002. <br /> <br />Mr. Adams stated that he felt Site 6 was an extremely high risk due to lack of <br />control of the site. He stated that there are too many concerns with Site 6: <br />scheduling a closing, demolishing the house, plugging the well, and financial <br />liability if the site were not available for timely construction. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Kuester again asked Mr. Adams if Site 8, the Deschene site, would work. Mr. <br />Adams responded that the urban service district and land uses can change with <br />a vote of the Council and that Site 8 is not centrally located as the Urban Service <br />District is currently defined. Mr. Adams stated that the Utilities Commission are in a <br />position of risk management in order to protect the future investment and future <br />