My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1992/04/02
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
Agenda Packets - 1992/04/02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:47:17 PM
Creation date
7/17/2018 2:55:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
4/2/1992
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
4/2/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
91
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 10 . <br /> OMB Report Number: 9 2—217WS <br /> STAFF REPORT <br /> BigAGENDA SESSION DATE April 6, 1992 Report Date: -2-9 <br /> DISPOSITION <br /> Item Description: <br /> Citizen Concerns Regarding Hooking Up to City Water <br /> Administrator's Review/Recommendation: <br /> - No comments to supplement this report <br /> - Comments attached. <br /> Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) <br /> UMMARY; <br /> Some of the residents not currently hooked up to municipal water have <br /> contacted me regarding their individual situations. Their concerns <br /> about being required to hook-up fall into 3 categories. First, a few <br /> residents feel they simply can not afford to hook up to municipal <br /> water at this time. They were wondering if they could possibly sign an <br /> agreement to have their water tested on a regular basis and agree to <br /> have the water hooked up if they sell their property in the future. <br /> The second group feels that they should not have to hook up because <br /> their water has been tested safe and they do not want to drink "all <br /> the chemicals in city water" . These individuals feel that no one <br /> should be required to hook up to city water. <br /> The last group of residents do not have direct access to a water main. <br /> There are 7 locations where a water main is not directly adjacent to <br /> the property. One of these does have access to a Fridley water main <br /> and his neighbors currently are hooked up to the Fridley main. Two of <br /> the residents can hook-up with a longer than normal service. This <br /> would also need to be oversized and therefore becomes significantly <br /> more costly than a normal service. There are 4 properties that should <br /> have a main extended to properly serve them. This would probably more <br /> t-han deub, the-eost and if a-saessed-to-t-he property, would-be-subject <br /> to the assessment procedure of the Charter. The individuals could <br /> petition to not allow the assessment. Again, the property owners feel <br /> they should not be required to hook-up. <br /> The final question that I have been asked is "What will the City do if <br /> I refuse to hook-up?" . The Council should consider what enforcement <br /> action staff should take. The options include fines under an adminis- <br /> trative offense, building condemnation for not meeting code require- <br /> ments, or that some other action could occur. <br /> Staff is requesting Council direction in this matter. <br /> Ric 'netor <br /> City Engineer/Director of Public Works <br /> RECOMMENDATION; <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.