|
LAKE ELMq--CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,,-,APRIL 2, 1.985 PAGE 4.,.-
<br />B._ Landfill Safe Drinking Water Issue
<br />ma or issues concerning s memo of'3 27-85 in which he discusses the
<br />The Engineer reviewed his
<br />j this 'safe drinking water is'sue.The Counties
<br />agree ,on most major,i,ssues. There are four issues which the parties
<br />do not agree'and which merit further^d'iscussion. These issues are (1)
<br />System. Expandibility;.(2) Opperation and Maintenance Costs;. (3),Fire
<br />Protection;' (4),Watermain'ilou'te. „
<br />With reference to the cost estimates, Qn'page 3 of, the ,report, the
<br />Engineer stated that the figures are from 04 County", and he does not
<br />necessarily agree with the figures. In reviewing the entire file.,on
<br />the Advisory Committee Report, which began about a year ago, up until
<br />July of 1984 the figures the County was.., using for the system without
<br />the fire protection was a'3�00'gallon per minute well for just 52
<br />homes. What came out in this report is only 100 gallons per minute
<br />for 52 homes and 200,gallons per. minute for 130 homes It was the
<br />opinion of ti'e Engineer that the .people, that, are. ton private wells now
<br />are able, t4 do certain things. If they can water the lawn, wash the
<br />car arid' do a "load 'o'f -Laundry at the same "time, they should have the
<br />same capability with" a public water supplysystem, and would not want
<br />to recommend a very minimal system that ,would, require, sprinkling -bans
<br />right away. Oftentimes these rough 'designfigures and rough cost
<br />estimates all of a sudden become, locked,into.stone. They are strictly
<br />preliminary and that is the way they should be viewed, and we should
<br />point,that_put to the County.
<br />The reiativ'e`difference hetween'no fire protection and fire protection
<br />on the`estimate shows about $110;OOd just for water supply alone.
<br />For $110,000 we might be able to get, instead of'a large capacity
<br />well, a small. elevated storage tank. Or, we might be able to provide
<br />with arvalveionyThe,makiri;valvegvouldnnottbe'openede ne Oakdale, water 'system
<br />xcept in the, case ,of a
<br />fire.
<br />The estimated cost of a 50,000 gallon elevated tank would be somewhere
<br />lieu o the bhor capacl2� 000 to $140,000., This option would-be in
<br />in the neighororhood,oF $ ,
<br />it
<br />Mazzara feels that the residents 'in the area should have some input as
<br />to what they desire as 'they .Would .be, paying the costs that_are, not
<br />covered by'the Counties.
<br />Morgan.feels that the well striping -is not the answer to containing
<br />the contamination to the site. Some of the contaminants they,are;not
<br />concerned with right now, but,have been metioned,, have boiling points
<br />higher than water. He fee'ls'that there is no they can,s,trip those
<br />contaminants out, and feels that the City should negotiate for the
<br />expanded system based on that premise.
<br />jim McLeod; 898j,4�nd'�treet',(HELP member) stated that i e fire
<br />"protectionissue was brought.up,by Councilman Dunn. Dunnfelt that it
<br />should be a bargining issue in that the City was going to incur
<br />expenses for billing, etc., for running this water,,system and that the
<br />County should pay the City something for that. It was suggested that
<br />one of the ways,the County could pay,would be,for fire_ protection..
<br />Mr: McLeod further advised the'Council that neithe'r,'County Board;,,
<br />
|