03-10-81 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PUBLIC HEARING, MARCH 10, 1981 LEGION POND ASSESSMENT Mayor Eder called the hearing to order at 8:37 p.m. Engineer Bohrer reviewed the project and explained the assessment method, stating the project and feasibility study was initiated by a petition from residents around Legion Pond. The Engineer prepared a Feasibility Study on lowering the level of Legion Pond. The study determined additional testing was warranted and the residenta=in the area requested that test wells be sunk to determine the relation of the ground water to the surface water. The wells determined that the level of the pond was supported by the ground water. The total project cost was $7,876.54. Resulting work, based on the study, was to fill several of the yards abutting the pond. The City made fill available to the residents and allowed a credit for the value of hauling the fill in an amount of $4;309:20, This was applied against the total project cost; leaving the net to be assessed at $3,567.54. The proposed assessments were divided in two ways. $100 of the total cost is proposed to be assessed for each of the petitioning lots which do not abut the pond. The remainding $493.51 is proposed to be assessed to each petitioning lot that does abut -the pond. AUDIENCE COMMENTS: Dan Collyard 2814 Legion - Asked how the assessed amount compares to the first estimated cost? Larry Bohrer - said the estimated cost given at the feasibility hearing was for pumping. Dan Collyard - said he thought the first estimated cost included the test wells and was less than $5,000. Why the higher cost. Larry Bohrer - said the first public meeting on the Feasibility Study was to pump the pond using the City's pipe and pump. At that meeting the area residents asked that more investigation be done before initiating pumping. The cost_.of the test wells at that time was not known. Bill Peterson- 2778 Legion - said at the feasibility meeting everyone agreed that further testing was necessary and that they all agreed to share in an assessment. Mayor Eder - said that the project commenced under the petition, so the limit of the assessment.is tQ the limit of the petitioners. Bill Peterson- said residents agreed at that time that more testing was necessary to determine exactly what would be necessary to alleviate the problem. The residents refused to agree to anythin3further until additional testing was done; and agreed to share in these costs. Administrator Whittaker - said the problem is that legally the City cannot, under State Statute, assess anyone who did not sign the petition unless an improvement is constructed. The other residents, who said they would share the costsf would have been assessed if an:'dmprovement had been ordered.