Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the law before tonight's meeting, I caught this provision <br />which I had just skimmed over before, and I'm a little con- <br />cerned if a project like this can go forward without going <br />through the channels (inaudible) authorized by the Minnesota <br />Pollution Control Agency. There may be a claim made by the <br />defendants in our lawsuit that (inaudible). <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: Is there anyone in favor of the <br />improvement? <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: That's not a simple question - <br />are they in favor of clean water or in favor of $50.00 a <br />foot? <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: I meant the question to be clearer. <br />Is anyone in favor of the improvement as proposed, with the <br />costs as outlined? (No from the audience). <br /> <br />MAYOR WOODBURN: Are there other comments from the <br />Council? <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: I just want to make sure that <br />members of the audience who patiently sat through the three <br />previous - four previous hearings - understand the difference <br />between those'hearings and this hearing. Those were assess- <br />ment hearings where the improvement was in and there wasn't <br />any question about whether it was going to be done. It had <br />been done. We were trying to figure out how to pay for it. <br />This is to inform us about what the people really want in <br />this regard. It's quite possible that you do not want it - <br />or at least don't want it at this time - and there are a <br />number of other considerations. In no sense have I or any <br />member of the Council up here made up their mind, nor are <br />we pushing this improvement. This is an opportunity to <br />discuss this thing - whether at this time it would be a good <br />idea. That's why we're here tonight. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Mrs. McNiesh pulled some of the <br />old records regarding the past watermain improvement. Out <br />of a total of $600,000 and some, the City only picked up <br />$39,000 of the total cost of that improvement. It was a <br />very small percentage. You were absolutely right - the <br />overall cost of that job was distributed over commercial <br />properties and commercial acreage, which helped offset the <br />cost to residential areas - the footage costs. The village <br />picked up very little of that. <br /> <br />MRS. GEORGINA CARLSON, 4345 Highway 10: I was just <br />wondering how you decide if this is 100% (inaudible). <br /> <br />MAYOR WOODBURN: First off, just a basis of reasonable- <br />ness. Past practice enters into that, what was done in the <br />past on these kinds of things. I think the $39,000 was an <br />unanticipated shortfall (inaudible). Past practices, what <br /> <br />-10- <br />