Laserfiche WebLink
~ ~~,~ <br />f, s ` <br />~ <br />There are 2,449 single family residenltsin Moundsview. This pro,~ect <br />was proposed on the Dasts of ground water reTated canp1aSnts of 91 <br />homeowners or businesses. 23 complatnts of water in basements, 26 <br />had wet yard or standing water problefr.s and 42 more had other types <br />oP drainege probte~ns. 7his means that 99.]% of the residents have <br />no weC Easement prabiemc and thaC 96.9% of the residen~s have NO <br />water pro6lems at aiT. <br />Now these un~sffected residenEs should nut expect future prohlems <br />unless intensive development of present water collection basins <br />er.d seep areas takp piace. Bparing #n mind that the estimated r.ost <br />of this profect is in exceSS of 6~t million dollars and, as gleaned <br />from the consultants report 96.3lG of the residents have no water <br />problems, it is obvious that the 9reatest amou~C of 6enefit wiTi <br />accrue to owners of undeveloped property. All but a very smatl <br />perc~ntage of such pr:;:%~rty is owned by a few large firms, and <br />these Pirms will be assessed at the residcntial property hotders <br />rates regardless of their intended use of this land or its poten21a1 <br />vatue wiEh improvements,.-Such as high density housing or lfqht~t, <br />or heavy inddstrial mar.ufacturing. <br />~~ Almost al] homeowners in the city-wide "benefitted" area can expect <br />I ,-~ to pay in excess of E2,000 per sinple family dwelling 9n specia) <br />~ ~ assessments and property taxes. i:zeping ~1n r~rind that 96.3~ of the <br />,, _... homern~ners do not havn water related prablems in addition 2o having <br />; already paid for th~eir sewer improvements, iE ~s incomprchenslbl~ <br />( Lhat the city wi11 be abte to prave comnensurate benefiC to the <br />; haneowngrs of Moundsvtew. Knowing that the city, by 1aw, can <br />~ only ~+Yy and assess up to the increase in ueiue of the "banefltter" <br />i properti~s and that, as proposed, the special essessment he~rin9 <br />' to decide this wSli take place if the pro,~ect 1s approved, we have <br />no alternative but to quesNon the city cuuncil's sense ~f f~irness <br />and integTSty in regards to this propused pro~ect. <br />; <br />~ lt is our understanding that the lnCensity of the drainage and <br />Fondtng Plan wtll eliminate much of thz present wildllfe habitats <br />with{n the city's bounderies. Conversion of marsh to deeper water <br />holding bodies, tf overdone as proposed, will result in a toss of <br />' habitat diversity. What 1s contrived to be the °beneftt" to <br />~ controt Maundsviews occasional water problems wiTl, in ali likely- <br />' hood 6e detrimental to receiving waters. We wtil be pushing con- <br />i centrated doses of our purported problems further down stream. <br />i in addition, the bacterfal counts in storm water are stgnificant <br />~ and 1n sane cases are as high as in sanitary sewer water ahd this <br />polluted water will be discharged into the receiving water with- <br />i ouL treatmenL. <br />~~' <br />