06-18-85 S&W Comm MinutesJr
• June 18, 1985 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 7:30 P.M.
4TH , 5TH, & 6TH AVENUE WEST SERVICE EXTENSION
Councilman Gary Nystul and Director of Public Works Hammer chaired the
meeting. Property owners attending included Don Landon, Orville E. Isakson,
Robert Berglund, Jenny Fisher, Jim Hunt, Lawrence C. Zanor, Tim and Debbie
Hill, Jane and Jim Geralds, Clifford and Duella Tippetts, John J. Miglino,
John and Joyce Maiden, Bob Taylor, Gary Crow, Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Bain,
Robert LaFrance, Tom Tuttle, Mr. and Mrs. Harold B. Moen, Mr. and Mrs. Walter
Block, Mr. and Mrs. Fred Brigg, Mr. and Mrs. Thoman Brittain, and Earnest
Bang.
Councilman Nystul opened the meeting and gave the purpose. History of
the problem: The City, in 1939 and 1943 extended 2" water lines which are
now in bad repair. DPW Hammer indicated that there are two areas of concern
from the City's viewpoint: (1) The water main problem - no pressure and contin-
uously in need of repair, and (2) the patching of the streets. The City does
not want to do this because it is County, and the County doesn't want to patch
when the City tears it up for water line repairs.
There are two options for work on the water line: (1) Replace the 2".
line with the City paying replacement costs, and (2) Replace the 2" line with
an 8" main, fire hydrants, in which case the City would pay for a 2" and the
• property owners would pay for the additional size and fire hydrants. Under
the Public Service Commission rules the City is required only to maintain
the original 2" line. Whatever is done order sliould be restored in how the
service connections are run. Property owner cooperation and sharing of the
funding would allow for upgrading.
Property Owner input included the following comments and questions:
15 - 20 years ago we worked hard for 2 years to be annexed and were blocked
at every turn. Then we worked with the County Commissioners who recommend-
ed a City SID over a rural SID. We talked to the Director of Public
Works and the City Attorney but nothing came of it. There were unhappy
neighbors because of water easements across neighbor's land to pick up
water on other streets. There is a long history of tearing up line after
line as they rusted out.
Questions concerning cost: Cost of Woodland Extension cited as example-
20 years at 10%. When City knows whether there is a definite interest
more accurate figures could be made available. C. Nystul explained how
the per house figures were obtained using front footage or square footage
or a combination of the two. Sewer costs would depend on grade and what
was needed to hook in.
Gary Crow voiced an appreciation to the City for listening. Asked for
time factor projections. After Notice of Intent, Public Hearing to create
a Special Improvement District, the engineering and final design, legal
• notices and selling of bonds it would be October at the soonest. If
it was held up any it could be spring.
Cohesivness factor discussed. C. Nystul indicated that a 50/50 consent
would sell the program to the Council. DPW Hammer indicated the City
r
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
• June 18, 1985
Page 2
would send letters to determine who was interested in water, sewer,
and annexation - but there was enough interest shown that a show of
hands vote was taken. The large majority of those present were interested
in both water and sewer extension and having the roads fixed.
Question of the requirements for road widths for annexation (none),
and a discussion of the benefits of annexation. Also concern about the
difference in taxes. C. Nystul made the following points about taxes:
no difference in school, both County and City residents pay bridge tax,
County residents only pay up to 15 mil for road levy, and County residents
pay a rural fire levy which City residents do not, and City residents
pay approximately 105 mil that County does not. With the addition of
fire hydrants fire insurance may be less. There was discussion of
annexation, factors involved, standards, and policy.
The possibility of eligibility for a 201 grant was raised.
Question of sharing of costs when services are not needed at this point.
The property owner would pay their share but would not be required to
hook up to the system until their septic system failed.
• Question of the time factor for annexation and completion of the work:
The issue of SID vs. RSID needs to be resolved, but should be able
to work simultaneously with annexation process.
Request that the City show differences in costs with and without annexation:
Water and sewer rates, real estate taxes.
Question of alleys: C. Nystul doubted that alleys would ever be put
in. If property owners wanted alleys they would have to dedicate right-
of-way to the City and the City would then assist in putting in alleys.
A property owner indicated that he preferred the sewer and water lines
on the streets, not alleys. Some discussion of how to attach the line
coming from the back of the house to mains in front of the house.
Woodland SID included stubbing out. Owners not required to hook up until
sewer systems fail.
The City will send a letter to all owners of record and will include
approximate costs for extension per owner, comparison of City and County
taxes and levies, comparison of sewer and water rates as County vs. City,
and a questionaire asking what services each owner is interested in and
how each feels about annexation.
Meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M.
0 ajg