res_7308 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MAYOR DEMOS: That would be the most expensive for them though, wouldn't it? MR. HONCHELL: No, we have some even more expensive ones than that. It would be more expensive, in our view, especially when you consider that more than one home ultimately will hook to that sewer. At that point then, at their expense, they would have to build that line over or to some point - wherever it is they wish to make a connection. Anytime more than one home connects to the sewer on a lot, you have to have separate connections. Plus, this is setting it way over in the middle of a hole. Again, that land falls off very fast there. We're saying this could be done, although in fairness to the owners, we don't recommend that. The third alternative would be to serve the property the greatest as all the property, mainly by coming out of this low manhole, crossing Dale, coming up near County Road C, still on the low land, and then building across to the point where it's adjacent to this parcel so they could bring up sewer service and connect. That would end up with an elevation.of 902, amply deep for the 917 basement. The problem with that is we would have to acquire easements from the owner, who has stated he is adamantly opposed. There would be considerable tree removal along that site and we would have to bring in some fill to cover some of the sanitary sewer because the land is very up and down. The offshoot of it being it's a much more expensive facility - far more expensive than the proposed alignment. The last one is the one that, at first blush, we thought might be a good one - mainly to simply come out of this man- hole, build a line to the corner and serve it. We could do that. We can get that at roughly 914 or 915, which will serve the home. The problem with that is that to build at that location, we have to stay up on the high. ground because down in here the ground is even lower than that - the pipe would be sticking out of the ground. 'Which means rebuilding a lane of County Road C. I don't have to explain all the details why that's not a very good plan. That's even more expensive than the other one. While this would look on a flat piece of paper, when you start looking at the elevations and where it actually had to go, we found this to have some serious problems. You would not have outstanding assessments, assuming it came from this location, because they would be building a piece of the lateral and therefore would not have to pay for this part of it because they would be extending it. Our recommendation is alignment #1 and, based on the Health Department's findings, I guess we would strongly recommend that some facility be provided and that the hook up be accom- plished. MR. POPOVICH: The total published cost of this was $64,286.87, which was the highest one of the alternatives Mr. Honchell has outlined. Alternative No. I was $18,628.13 and the estimated cost per front foot was $37.56. The