3/5/12
Have a private well and no city water available to your property? More than half of Shorewood properties are in this situation. Mayor Lizee and her three council buddies have embarked once again on a quest to put city water down every street in Shorewood (well, not every one as can be seen later in this posting).
During the 2/27 council work session Lizee, Siakel and Zerby discussed the first blush of a plan to put water throughout Shorewood over a 20 year period. Hotvet and Woodruff were absent. Readers can view the meeting at: http://lmcc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=439
Staff has done an excellent job of presenting a plan with associated costs. With some inflation in the costs, and over 20 years, the plan costs nearly $30 million (yes million). The average cost is about $15,000 per property and costs of over $100,000 per property are shown.
Just to put $30 million into perspective, the City's whole tax levy per year is just under $5 million. So where is the money coming from?
Well, Zerby and Siakel want a consultant. Siakel wants to focus on the first 3 to 5 years. Zerby thinks a City subsidy might be in order so as to lower the cost to property owners. The Insider doesn't see any leadership from the three at the meeting as to how to fund and what policy might need to be adopted. The only thing they want is to have meetings with residents to discuss the plan (what plan?). I guess Lizee expects someone else, once again, to tell her what to do.
The Islands? They're not part of the plan or the costs.
Keep watching this blog and messages from the City about meetings over the next two or three months.
Happy Reading!
The Insider
Developers love a city-wide water system. Makes it easier to subdivide properties, or to put up higher density housing. So if the council can convince the individual home owners to pay for the trunk lines, then the Real Estate pros can move in.
ReplyDeleteIf any homeowner really wants city water, please post a comment and lets look at your situation.
Putting in a new well and connecting it up is a third to half the cost of city water, and you don't have to pay monthly fees or special assessments.
I have been following this discussion for years.
ReplyDeleteMany of us cannot afford the assessments or an additional monthly payment on our already weakened household budgets. Start off with the $10,000 to $15,000 average assessment for just bringing in the trunk and then add another $8,000 to $20,000 for a private contractor to bring it up to your house and hook it up.
Then know that we will all still need to maintain our water softening and filtration systems while paying for the water which we pumped out of the ground ourselves previously.
The only filter you supposedly will not need is your arsenic filter, although representatives of 2 different water softening companies both said that there is arsenic in the city water so we would be prudent to continue with that filter as well.
And finally, please note that the water system is an enterprise for the city as was recently explained at a council meeting if you watch Council on Cable. It generates revenue and is operating at a tidy profit. At our expense.
I agree with the above statement, developers love city wide water for all of the reasons stated.
Pay attention everyone, the water discussion is coming to your neighborhood. Insider, can you please direct us on the city's website or in the minutes to where we might find the schedule so everyone can see where their neighborhood falls?
Yes developers love city water, but they are not stacked up at Shorewood borders ready to flatten the city and turn it into Beijing. So, what is the back story here? Why the drive for citywide water? Someone help me understand.
ReplyDeleteWith property values falling, even the suggestion of taking multiple millions out of the community for this unnecessary boondoggle is totally irresponsible. So Zerby thinks a city subsidy is in order? Where does he think that money is coming from? It's all our money. For those wondering why Lizee would lead the charge for this, don't expect a rational answer. She has never let facts get in the way of telling us what is best for us.
ReplyDeleteHaving paid my over-inflated-not-founded-in-reality $10,000 water assessment, I for one am not willing to pay a subsidy for anyone else, and I bet there are others who agree. And by the way having city water has done nothing to protect my property value--just another unsubstantiated argument from the past.
ReplyDelete