HomeMy WebLinkAboutgr00090_000010_pg137-020into consideration present and future costs of development. He felt that
the charges shown were fair and equitable to present and future home owners.
He explained the $1.00 per month (or $18.00 per year) sewer rental and stated
that
2.00 of the monthly figure would go for the cost of operating Village
equipment and the remaining $2.00 for the District. It is possible that
these figures might be less. Mr. Olson also brought up the fact that the
cost of installing sewer from the lot line into the house is not included in
these figures.
In closing he stated he would be happy to answer any questions which
would help clarify this program.
Mr. Hodges then asked for a question and answer period, and for those
who objected to or favored the sanitary sewer program.
OBJECTIONS were expressed by:
Joseph Stork
8016 Red Oak Drive
He asks - - "Why shouldn't everybody be assessed the same ?"
He did not need water but went along with it. Feels sewer
will be the same. Area involved is too large- -too costly.
Wm. Frits
8072 Long Lake Rd.
Need for sewer was first introduced as a health necessity.
Have water now - -feels this should take care of health needs.
Feels an increased cost for sewer by 1/3 on a $15,000 home
is unreasonably high. Hook -up charges would be added.
Feels Council has already made up its mind about sewer.
Robert Hillyard
2166 Highway 10
Feels people first moved to area to be independent of city.
If septic tank not too small, it will work. Feels question
of sewer improvement already decided upon. Does not believe
there is a contamination problem.
Carl Fisher
7157 Pleasant View Drive
If needed badly in Twelve Oaks and Pinewood areas, he would
not complain too much. Thinks it is cheaper to put in another
drainfield. Sewer too expensive at this time for large lots.
-9-