Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 14, 1993 <br />Hanson reported that in many cases the property owners <br />were not interested in water main and indicated that <br />their wells were adequate. <br />Scalze pointed out that as recently as the early 1980's <br />the property owners on County Road B-2 did not want <br />City water. <br />The City Administrator pointed out that in 1983 there <br />was a petition from the property owners on Viking Drive <br />for water main. However, the project was opposed by <br />the majority of the residents due to the high cost. <br />Joanne Sprain commented on the poor quality of water in <br />the Viking Drive area, reporting that due to iron <br />bacteria the wells need to be shock chlorinated <br />annually. There are other expenses associated with the <br />well for removal of iron, softening, maintenance, etc. <br />Pedersen again indicated that the issue is how much are <br />the residents willing to pay for the improvement. <br />Pedersen stated that he was sympathetic to the <br />residents, but felt that the City's picking up 50% of <br />the cost was too high. <br />Scalze pointed out that the City's picking up 20% of <br />the cost would result in a cost of $8,742 per lot. <br />The Administrator pointed out that that figure would <br />also involve the City's picking up the cost of that <br />portion of the water main running from Edgerton to <br />Viking Drive. Therefore, actual City participation is <br />qreater than 20%. <br />Scalze pointed out that if it would cost $5,000 to dig <br />a new well, and the cost of water main is $8,742, she, <br />as a resident, would pay the additional $3,700 to get <br />City water. Scalze pointed out that there are <br />additional costs with the operation and maintenance of <br />wells. Scalze felt that a City participation rate of <br />20o would be fair to the rest of the taxpayers in the <br />City. Scalze also indicated that the City would have <br />to obtain Waivers of the Right to Appeal should the <br />property owners support the project at an $8,742 <br />assessment. Scalze noted that the City's tax dollars <br />are limited and therefore, the City must be careful in <br />how it uses those dollars. <br />LaValle pointed out that a 35% City assessment rate <br />would result in a cost to the property owners of <br />$7,840, while 20% is $8,742, and 50% is $6,030. <br />Scalze stated that <br />participation rate <br />20o if the project <br />she would support a <br />if the project were <br />is not looped. <br />Page 8 <br />35% <br />looped, but only <br />