Laserfiche WebLink
The Chairman asked those in the audience in favor of the <br />water to raise their hands and then those in opposition to do the <br />same. The count was 4 in favor and 8 opposed, but it was noted <br />that not everyone was present. <br />Len Spangler, 936 47th Avenue, found it amazing that <br />Director Pinto says he doesn't care if they get the water or not <br />because he felt Utilities has been trying to cram this down their <br />throats from the beginning. He believed four families are in <br />support of the water, but he thought the petition was designed to <br />respond to the wants of the majority of the community. The <br />project was originally estimated at $2,100, and nine people said <br />they wanted it, but when the price got up to around $4,000, then <br />there was a change of attitude. Mr. Spangler stated that he <br />personally did not care to spend $4,000 and then $25-30 a month <br />for something he already has. He very much objected to the - <br />tactics used in promoting this and also the allegations made <br />regarding unsafe water when, in fact, there is nothing in the <br />report saying the water is unsafe for human consumption. He <br />believed the only well sampled was a shallow well, and while he <br />was told this didn't make any difference, professionals in this <br />field told him that the deeper the well, the clearer the water. <br />Mr. Spangler advised that he was at a public hearing about a <br />month ago, which he understood was to discuss whether the <br />community wanted the water or not. That meeting turned into a <br />shouting match when it became obvious the only thing staff wanted <br />to discuss was the unsafe condition of the water and how the <br />residents were going to mortgage their homes to pay for it. He <br />stated that the background memo for this meeting, which has been <br />alluded to again this morning, says that "the neighborhood is no <br />longer neighborly." That's a personal observation that certainly <br />doesn't reflect objectivity on behalf of the county employee who <br />offered the memo. Mr. Spangler continued that the same memo <br />contains a statement that the opposition expressed by the <br />residents is "Irrational," and he took strong personal offense at <br />J U L 1988 41 Boor 73 PnE 181 <br />