Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />FEBRUARY 9, 1994 <br />development, is that utilities are the cost of doing <br />business when a property is developed. In a built-up <br />area the majority of homes existed prior to the water <br />main being installed. The Administrator pointed out <br />that the water main projects assessed in 1971 were <br />assessed at a cost of $6.50 per front foot whether <br />there was double-frontage or single-frontage. The <br />Administrator questioned whether single-frontage lots <br />should be penalized now for not making the decision to <br />connect back in 1971. <br />Scalze pointed out even unwatered areas of the City are <br />paying for the water tower even though some of these <br />properties will probably never see any benefit. <br />The Administrator replied that all properties in the <br />City receive the benefit of improved insurance ratings <br />due to the existence of the water tower. <br />Scalze stated that the $6.50 per foot did not include <br />payment for the large water infrastructure. Scalze <br />also stated that the Fire Department would not be able <br />to reduce training if there were still even one street <br />in the City without water main. Scalze questioned how <br />much better the City's insurance rating was due to the <br />system in place. <br />Morelan stated that without the City water tower there <br />is no doubt that insurance rates would be higher as <br />well as more equipment would be needed by the Fire <br />Department. <br />The Administrator suggested that it may be a good time <br />to revisit the fire rating of the City due to the <br />construction of the new fire station, added equipment, <br />and loopinq of some critical water lines. Scalze <br />agreed. <br />Hanson suggested that perhaps the assessment rates for <br />all City water main projects should be added up and <br />averaged to determine a rate to assess single-frontage <br />streets. <br />The Administrator felt the rate would be too low. <br />Scalze agreed pointing out that the rates assessed in <br />1970 and 1971 would bring the average down. Scalze <br />suggested an average of the more current projects. <br />Morelan was not sure that was equitable and felt that <br />property owners in the most difficult to water areas <br />should not pay less than anyone else has paid for water <br />main. <br />Scalze felt that all Council Members agreed that these <br />Paqe 7 <br />