5/12/11
During the Council Meeting on 5/9 (see http://windowsmedia.alphameetings.com/LMCCShorewood/050911shorewood.wmv at 57 minutes and 18 seconds) there was a discussion of the hook-up fee for city water. This broadened into a discussion of water policy and ended with staff being directed to hold a work session where water policy and charges could be discussed.
The Insider has been waiting for the city water topic to come up since Mayor Lizee's slate of two new Council Members took office in January. Those of you who've followed the Mayor's policy desires for the last many years should be very aware that she wants city water extended throughout Shorewood. Council Member Zerby has also advocated this. In the above-referenced portion of the 5/9 meeting, Council Member Siakel can be heard coming out in support.
The big question surrounding extending city water service is: who pays for the pipes to be installed? Currently, policy (simplified) is that property owners are assessed for the cost of the pipe going past their property at the time the pipe is laid. The assessment happens whether or not the property wants water or ever hooks up. As one can hear in the 5/9 meeting, the pipe assessment is typically in the $8,000 to $9,000 range. So, property owners, under current policy, are faced with paying a big bill, in cash or on time payments with interest, for something they may not want or ever use.
Do you, the Shorewood Property owner, want to be forced to pay for a pipe if you don't want it or plan to connect to it? If Lizee, under current policy, has her way, everyone in Shorewood that does not already have a water pipe running past their house will be getting one and paying for it too.
There are lots of alternatives too. What ones might you want to see implemented?
Happy Reading!
The Insider
Those fees are just for the pipe being run to the property line. To extend it to the property owner's house and hook it up costs more. If the house is located fifty or more feet away from the city line, the total cost could be easily double the city assessment.
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting how Lizee will try to justify this unnecessary and extremely expensive boondoggle. So far, when residents have been offered the option during street reconstruction, they have always rejected it due to cost. That won't stop Lizee from deciding she can make a better decision on how we should spend our money.
ReplyDelete