Laserfiche WebLink
I i <br />NAVARRE WATER PLANT PUBLIC HEARING <br />MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 23,1997 <br />Peters also questioned the engineering and contingency fee. She asked how much was considered <br />contingency. Roushar responded that the contingency is based on the engineering estimates used <br />for bids. Approximately 5 - 7.5% would be considered contingency with the remaining used towards <br />engineering fees. <br />Miller asked about the construction of the water tower near the City offices and how it happened. <br />Jabbour assured her that the Navarre residents were not paying for it. The users have been assessed <br />who use that tower. The City is slightly subsidizing the bonds used to construct the tower. He noted <br />the current Council has made a conscious decision to have users pay for the services they use. Based <br />on current and potential development of the Highway 12 corridor, it was felt that an additional water <br />tower was needed in that area. <br />Walt Romann, 2420 Old Beach Road, asked if there would be a long-term effect on the distribution <br />system if the softening system was not repaired. Roushar responded that it would not affect the <br />distribution system but would be noticed in the home by build-up in the water heating and piping <br />system. <br />Jabbour asked if removal of iron and manganese would have the same affect. Roushar stated that <br />there would be a negative affect if the filtration system were not upgraded. There could be iron <br />build-up and serious complaints about the water color. Softening could be considered more of an <br />optional upgrade. <br />Cuff also felt that $350 was not excessive. She asked if she would be charged for two hook-ups if <br />she has two lots with two water stubs even if she has only one house. Moorse suggested that since <br />the property has been combined into one lot, only one charge should be made. Holste asked if the <br />same situation would apply to his property. He has three stubs but only one buildable lot. Jabbour <br />thought he would also pay for only one charge but could not give him a final answer without <br />knowing ail the facts. <br />Jabbour asked for comments from Councilmembers. <br />Peterson stated she was in favor of the project. She was disappointed there were not more users <br />present. <br />Kelley stated he was in favor of the project but would need to review how the assessment would be <br />determined. <br />Goetten was also in favor of the project but unsure about the assessment. <br />Flint agreed with other members.