Laserfiche WebLink
MIN[I`PES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />FEBRUARY 9, 1994 <br />SINGLE The City Administrator presented a report detailing <br />FRONTAGE water main assessment rates for several projects <br />WATER MAIN which were constructed in the City. The Administrator <br />POLICY pointed out that the highest rate assessed involved <br />water main on County Road D at $30.86 per front foot. <br />This was a blended rate used for all water main <br />projects assessed in 1984, and some of these projects <br />included double-frontage streets. Using the CPI rates <br />since 1984, the $30.86 per front foot translates into <br />$43.91 at today's prices. This rate would be higher <br />than what was assessed for the Edgerton water main <br />project. <br />Morelan stated that his main concern was to ensure that <br />the policy adopted is equitable to those properties <br />which have already been assessed for water main as well <br />as those which have not been assessed. Morelan was not <br />sure a 50/50 split of project costs would ensure <br />equity, and may result in some lower assessments in the <br />future from what other property owners have paid in the <br />past. <br />Scalze felt that some of the areas without water main <br />may be better served with wells. Scalze didn't feel <br />lack of City water was a failure by the City to provide <br />services. In some cases there may never be a <br />cost-effective way to put water in a street. <br />Pedersen pointed out the case where it may not be <br />possible to get good well water. <br />Scalze questioned if this is happening in the City and <br />stated she did not think so. Scalze didn't believe <br />that the rest of the taxpayers should subsidize very <br />expensive water main projects. <br />Morelan agreed that some water main projects would not <br />make economic sense. <br />Hanson asked how critical the lack of City water was to <br />fire protection services. <br />Morelan replied that lack of water main was a concern, <br />and it was a definite advantage to have a fire hydrant <br />in front of a house. Without City water the Fire <br />Department must make sure there is access to water, and <br />that may mean more fire equipment to carry water. If <br />the City were 100% watered, that may result in less <br />fire equipment being necessary. Therefore, it may be <br />cost effective for the general public to subsidize <br />expensive water main projects. Morelan also pointed <br />out that having a City completely watered results in a <br />lower fire rating which is a savings in insurance <br />Page 3 <br />