1888-1989 Archive Minutes
Minutes 1958 - 1974
12/24/2013 8:08:42 AM
12/23/2013 11:43:59 AM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
?.Q. FRANK UHLEMANN, 5520 Highland Road, sponsor*of one of the petitions against the <br />project, explained that he and the people whom he has contacted are not objecting <br />to the construction of the trunk main--that they do object to the method of assess- <br />aent, believing that those properties abutting the main should not be charged a <br />lateral charge inasmuch as they have not requested and do not need the improvement. <br />It was explained that, should the entire cost of construction be assessed as a trunk <br />the assessable cost would be increased to 83$ per front foot for platted property and <br />$203 per acre for unplatted property; but that, as properties were connected to the <br />lateral service connections a connection charge could be required to be paid into <br />the assessment fund, which could be used to reduce the later years' assessments; or, <br />if connections were not made until after the ten-year assessment period, cash refunds <br />could be made on the trunk assessments paid. <br />NIR. F. H. COLEhMN, ormer of 10 acres on cahill Road, suggested that main be run <br />along W.70th Street from the present main oilly as far as Cahill School. <br />he strenuously objects to Mr. Uhlemann's proposal that the trunk charge be raised <br />in lieu of making a lateral charge. <br />He stated <br />has. GENE KOHNER, 5904 Dewey Hill Road, owner of approximately & acres, asked if <br />there is any plan to bring water down Dewey Hill Road, and was informed that there <br />are no plans simply because there has been no petition for service. <br />complained that the assessment for unplatted properties is unfair because this <br />area will be platted into acre tracts rather than 100-foot lots.. <br />is any way whereby the assessment might be adjusted so that properties which will <br />get immediate benefit from the main can be assessed a greater share of the cost. <br />Mrs. Kohner suggested that it might be necessary to use pumps to bring the water <br />into her area, and was advised by Mr. Banister, consulting engineer, that if <br />laterals are constructed there will be ample pressure to give everybody in the <br />trunk district service without any need for individual pumping stations, <br />Mrs. ,Kohner <br />She asked if there <br />MR. ASP. WEINGARTNER, 5721 Z'J.68th Street, explained that while he has a fine well and <br />does not wish to connect to.the main now, he favors the project because of the fire <br />protection it will bring. <br />MR. RAY HEDELSON, 6001 TRACY AVENUE, <br />the opposition has had time to secure additional petitions. <br />asked for poptponement of action until <br />A GROVE STREET OWNER objected on the grounds that he is now paying three sewer <br />assessments, does not need the'water, Grove Street is only a half street and he <br />would rather spend h'is money for a good road. <br />MR. DAVID HANSON, 6104 Westridge Blvd., inquired as to whether the Hansen Road well <br />had been intended for expansion of the system or only for present users and whether <br />this well will be adequate to serve the areas to the Southwest as they build up. <br />Manager Hyde answered that the well was intended for use by both present and future <br />users, that it will be adequate for this presently discussed area; that future wells <br />may be needed in the Northwest part of the village as development continues. <br />AIR. CURT AUSTIN, 5509 Grove Street, objected to improvement on the grounds that it <br />will mean a $1600 assessment against his property, which would finance the digging <br />of two or three wells. <br />At this time Mayor Pro Tem Bank, explaining that it is not the position of the <br />Council to force the improvement down the throats of those who do not wish to accept <br />it, asked Mr. Banister to explain alternate routes, together with their advantages <br />and disadvantages. <br />plan is by far the best. <br />main along ~~70th Street from the MN8S tracks (present main) to Antrim Road; thence <br />on Antrim Road to Valley view Road; thence Northeasterly in Valley View Road to <br />a point South of Nine-Mile Creek--that this will not form a loop and will con- <br />sequently mean stagnant water difficulties. <br />the main on Valley View Road from Antrim Road to connect with Hymani:Avenue. <br />what would happen to the properties on the North side of the creek if the main is <br />terminated south of the creek, Mr. Banister replied that "they just won't get <br />water." Mr. Banister explained that crossings on Benton Avenue, W,59th or VJ-60th <br />Street are economically impractical because of the topography-that more benefit <br />for the same amount of money can be had by extending the mains, <br />termination of the main South of the creek would mean as to assessments, Mr. <br />Banister replied that the assessment for the reduced district would be about the <br />same as the original assessment, and Mr. Hyde reported he believes it will be <br />somewhat smaller inasmuch as the cost of the creek crossing would be eliminated, <br />Trustee Kohler recommended that inasmuch as the majority of the petitions against <br />the improvement have been received from the area North of Nine-Mile Creek the <br />Council discontinue consideration of installation North of the Creek and move <br />ahead with consideration of construction South of the creek. <br />Mr. Banister stated that he believes the presently proposed <br />He stated that one alternate would be to construct the <br />The other alternate was to continue <br />Asked <br />Asked what the
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.