CC 12-27-1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I'l.~nUI;:.t.':d or t.ue .t\ra.en lil..l.1b '-<'c,u.lar COu.i-';:1..1 Meeting, December :ll, l~!Hl * Page 2 RPT (CONT'D) . FEAS. The Engineer recommended that the cost of the watermain construction should be borne entirely by Hans Hagen. since it would benefit only one property at this time. The cost of the lift stations would be borne by the properties benefitted at a cost of approximately $8,138.00 per acre for the submersible design or $12.325 per acre for the wet well/dry well. He stated a public hearing would be required for assessment of benefitted properties and outlined the project schedule, as listed on page 3 of his report. Peters recommended construction of the submersible lift station . design. Council questioned why the watermains were not proposed for construction to all the properties at this time. Peters stated there are no definite plans for development to the south of the Hagen site and therefor no reason to extend costs to properties until they are ready for development. Council questioned if the cost to Hagen for the watermain construction would be the same if the watermain was extended to the south. Peters advised the costs would be approximately the same. Hagen favored installation of the submersible lift station rather than the wet well/dry well due to cost difference. He advised that he favored the installation of the lift station on a public basis although the costs were approximately 60% higher than if the station was privately installed. Council questioned if it would be beneficial to extend the watermain further south toward the lift station in the event the property to the south is developed at a later date. . Peters advised it would be more efficient and the extension of the watermain would increase the costs approximately $7,000.00; he stated this could be extended to Thom Drive and assessed to property owners on a front-footage basis. Council questioned if the maintenance costs for a submersible lift station are higher than for the wet well/dry well type. Pete~advised they are not substantially higher as the pump can be pulled out and taken for repairs. Raddatz agreed. Hagen suggested Council could hold a public hearing relative to the proposed lift station and extension of the watermain: if there are objections to the watermain extension Council may reconsider extending the services. Peters stated extension of the sewer and water services to Thom Drive would be feasible and costs estimates for the extension could be prspared prior to the scheduled public hearing. He could alao prepare the notice of hearing to include the entire area. Hagen stated if the Council determines the water and sewer for the entire project , will not be extended, he requested Council consider ending the watermain at the northeast corner of his site to reduce the size of the project and costs. Sather moved, seconded by Peck, that Council accept the Feasibility Study for the Cleveland Avenue Lift Station as submitted, and, further request that prior to the Public Hearing the Village Engineer prepare cost estimates for extension of the project to include sewer and water service to Thom Drive. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) REPORT OF CLERK ADMINISTRATOR 1988 COMMITTEE Council was referred to a memorandum from Clerk ATTENDANCE Administrator Berger relative to the 1988 Committees attendance lists. ,