10-13-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NAVARRE WATER PLANT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 23,1997 Cuff suggested breaking the softener and filtration improvements into separate projects. Roushar stated that he had looked at that option. Gappa, the Public Services Director, had asked the Engineer to look at rehabilitating the existing softening system vs. people buying iheir ovvn softeners. Roushar priced a basic Culligan softener and the cost to operate it, and found that it is cheaper for the City to continue softening. Salt costs for the City are much less than for an individual homeowner because the City can buy in bulk (25% less than at Cub Foods). Jabbour also noted that a homeowner's sewer bill may be higher because of the in-home softener discharging into the sewer system. Katherine Miller, 1635 Shadywood Road, stated they have been very' pleased with the water quality and do not have an in-home system. Andrew McDermott, 2702 Walters Port Lane, stated his water has been relatively good although he has purchased his own softener. He has tried the water using his own system as well as not using it, and it was difficult to tell the difference. He asked if the City softener was eliminated if he would have to increase the number of times he ran his own softener. Roushar responded that he would have to recharge more often and use more salt. Although the City system has not been as uniform as they would like, some of the hardness is still eliminated. The homeowner may have to triple the use of an in-home system if the City did not soften its water. Dave Holste, 1761 Concordia Street, asked what would happen to the 50% of homeowners who have existing in-home water softeners. Jabbour suggested a homeowner may continue to use their own softener if they choose to have softer water than is provided through the City system. Holste added that he uses a well but still pays for water because it is in the street. He has three units on his property. Moorse confirmed that there are some properties in the City that are not hooked up to water even though it is available. It is not mandatory to be connected just because City water is available. Moorse thought there may be one to two dozen situations where the property has not been connected to City water. The assessment is paid by everyone in the assessment area. Holste expressed his concern about financing. He did not feel he wanted to pay for soft water when he didn't use it. Jabbour compared a possible water assessment to a recent sewer assessment. The individual property owner could continue to use his private septic system but would pay the full amount when they do hook-up. Lois Hudlow, 3438 Lyric Avenue, also questioned the means of assessment. She asked for the definition of a unit and if Culver's would be considered one unit. Moorse responded that Culver's would be considered a parcel. She felt the assessment should be based on usage. She added that the water is good, she would like to keep it, and is willing to pay for it in an equitable manner.