Laserfiche WebLink
into consideration present and future costs of development. He felt that <br />the charges shown were fair and equitable to present and future home owners. <br />He explained the $4.00 per month (or $48.00 per year) sewer rental and stated <br />that $2.00 of the monthly figure would go for the cost of operating Village <br />equipment and the remaining $2.00 for the District. It is possible that <br />these figures might be less. Mr. Olson also brought up the fact that the <br />cost of installing sewer from the lot line into the house is not included in <br />these figures. <br />In closing he stated he would be happy to answer any questions which <br />would help clarify this program. <br />Mr. Hodges then asked for a question and answer period, and for those <br />who objected to or favored the sanitary sewer program. <br />OBJECTIONS were expressed by: <br />Joseph Stork <br />8016 Red Oak Drive <br />He asks "Why shouldn't everybody be assessed the same <br />He did not need water but went along with it. Feels sewer <br />will be the same. Area involved is too large- -too costly. <br />Wm. Frits <br />8072 Long Lake Rd. <br />Need for sewer was first introduced as a health necessity. <br />Have water now -feels this should take care of health needs. <br />Feels an increased cost for sewer by 1/3 on a $15,000 home <br />is unreasonably high. Hook -up charges would be added. <br />Feels Council has already made up its mind about sewer. <br />Robert Hillyard <br />2166 Highway 10 <br />Feels people first moved to area to be independent of city. <br />If septic tank not too small, it will work. Feels question <br />of sewer improvement already decided upon. Does not believe <br />there is a contamination problem. <br />Carl Fisher <br />7457 Pleasant View Drive <br />If needed badly in Twelve Oaks and Pinewood areas, he would <br />not complain too much. Thinks it is cheaper to put in another <br />drainfield. Sewer too expensive at this time for large lots. <br />-9- <br />