Laserfiche WebLink
tonight? It has been eluded to that there is no really fair way to handle <br />these costs, but which is the best way. I see some real contradictions. It is <br />being said that we should not assess for the improvements because you will have <br />a small number of property holders that will be really benefitting and the <br />costs are big. You are saying make it more fair for those people by setting up <br />taxing districts. These people are saying it is not fair to the districts <br />because it is a city wide problem. There are many solutions to the problem but <br />which one is the most cost beneficial? Maybe it would be better to relocate <br />the 20 homes haveing problems. Typically, when an area is developed there are <br />choice and not-so choice lots. Those people took a risk in buying those not-so <br />choice lots and they should carry a proportionate part of that risk. I fear we <br />are in a situation that is basically caused by a high water table and after all <br />the money is spent, the problem will have probably taken care of itself for <br />another 50 years. You are talking ponds and holding areas which require <br />easements; what kinds of costs are incurred in that type of situation? I don't <br />think the benefit is proportionate to the cost. The problem will take care of <br />itself in time. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that Council will consider adopting the ordinance to <br />establish the West and South Central Drainage Districts on April 22, 1986. <br /> <br />ADJOURNMENT <br /> <br />The public hearing adjourned at 9:30 p.m. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br />Sylvia Frol ik <br />Secretary <br /> <br />Dav £d 'H~rt 1 ey <br />City Administrator <br /> <br />April 15, 1986 <br />Page 12 of 12 <br /> <br /> <br />