CC 06-19-1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

�R. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The very basic plan o�e think is neces- sary - this is the watermain that would be constructed this year under a previous order by the Council, t��le caould be connecting on at this point, going around the lake back to here • and down to this point. That°s the base plan to provide a loop in a large area, plus the fact that we need to construct some watermain to serve this property in this area. T9R, SCHROEDER: Is it appropriate to speal: about the base p1an7 irle have intentions of developing industrial property on the west side of Round Lake, hopefully with the cooperation of I4re Griffis (7), that entire 33 acres, so we would subscribe to that installation along 35-Gd wholeheartedly. tflR. JOHiV LAD7YER, JR., 1484 West Highway 96: That's up along the blue stripe. UJe're strongly opposed to this develop- ment because the cost would be prohibitive for us. I hope I caught the right figures, but I figured it would be approxi- mately $11,000 for us. I would like to stronqly contest any assertion there would be any sort of commensurate improvement in the value of the lande To start with fire insurance - our total premium now is $200 a year. If we had a fire plug in front that would eut it maybe by 50� which is more than generous. *ae save $lOD a year for something which costs us $11,000. In terms of the value of our property, �ae have a well three years old and never had any trouble with it, but having been a recent home buyer myself, I can't see if i walked up to somebody and said we have this lovely house for sale for x-thousand dollars and over the next 20 years you aTill be paying $10,000 or $20,000 compounding the interest - what he'll say is let°s come down $10,000 or $15,000 on your house< In fact, I think it would be more than double. I don't have an actuarial table, but $11,000 is $22,000, so I would say a$25.000 assessment. That's about two years of earnings for me and that's a pro- hibitive and punitive levy, and my third point is we don't have any substantial acreage behind us. ��Te have a total of 7 1/2 acres that go back seven hundred some feet. The house is back 100 feet from the road, There simply is no way we could develop back there, and no way we could do it without destroying the value of our home as a ho�site, so I don't see from our point of view anything that we're qaining from any of these points of view that (inaudible) does to touch the amount of money it would cost us, so i would like to join those that are firnly opposed to this project. COWi CILMFu'V CRICHTON: I just �ranted to get something clearo • Your property is about 7 1/2 acres and 430 front feete I went through some rough calculations. If it's.$16 a front foot (inaudible) would run about (inaudible). P�IR. LAt�7YER: Are we the S19? 0