My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1983-12-27
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Minutes - City Council
>
Minutes 1983
>
1983-12-27
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2005 4:59:10 AM
Creation date
8/11/2005 1:13:09 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Minutes <br />December 27, 1983 <br /> <br />Page Four <br /> <br />Blomquist said we need to know the size of the project/ <br />development because it may dictate the outcome; we need <br />to know mo re. <br /> <br />Benke questioned the equity of a study. He asked if all <br />costs would be unique to this development, if the ideas <br />were part of the total system, or would this be something <br />special for Centex' units? He stated we would still have <br />the service costs of hooking up to the meters to get water <br />to the houses, not only for water service, but for fire <br />protection. <br /> <br />Schmidt agreed, but asked that if a residential development <br />were to be built there with rezoning, etc., is density <br />different that Rl-R2, assuming rezoning consideration was <br />one people were concerned wit~ in the first place? Schmidt <br />further stated that to spend ollars for a fasibility study <br />for something that is being p"oposed and not being developed <br />is not a good way to spend mcney, particularly if the City <br />is to pay for it. <br /> <br />Dick Putnam of the Tandem Corporation stated that 80% of the <br />site is too high and this is not a problem unique to New <br />Brighton. He stated three options: 1) a combination of <br />booster pumps for the existing system and a higher elevated <br />storage tank; 2) negotiate for nearby water from Columbia <br />Heights which has both adequate pressure and capacity; and <br />3) grade the site down (not a reasonable option). <br /> <br />Blomquist questioned, Would water supply be different based <br />on the type of building on the site? <br /> <br />Dick Putnam replied that no matter what was built, water <br />and pipe would still be needed. <br /> <br />Blomquist asked Putnam what their status was. <br /> <br />Putnam replied that Tandem has to make an economic decision. <br />Centex and the owners are trying to sign. There are some <br />issues here that we can make assumptions from the City of <br />New Brighton on. He further stated that Columbia Height's <br />Public Works Director is not over-encouraging. <br /> <br />Blomquist stated that he would prefer to wait until we had <br />a project and then order a Water Feasibility Study. <br /> <br />Janecek asked Putnam, If we consent to provide water, <br />would this enable you to go ahead? <br /> <br />Putnam replied, Yes, but the cost may be exhorbitant. <br /> <br />After further discussion between the Councilmembers and <br />Mr. Putnam,a Motion was made by Blomquist, seconded by <br />Benke to recommend that the developer develop the scope of <br />a Water Feasibility Study, as well as a cost sharing plan. <br /> <br />4 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.