Laserfiche WebLink
M s . <br />when residential development starts to take place next door. He <br />could almost guarantee that we will run into major problems with <br />residential being so close to a water treatment plant and a <br />wastewater treatment plant. The second thing we have to look at is <br />the required storage. We are projecting that we won't have to <br />provide 18 million gallons of storage, but if we do, the <br />arrangement of the tank farm on the existing property will be a <br />problem. Without the additional property, we may not be able to <br />meet the planning and zoning buffers. As far as the water plant is <br />concerned, the additional property would put us into a much better <br />position for, location of wells. Post Buckley's letter talks about <br />the ability to locate wells on the property that we are purchasing. <br />There is a mitigation requirement for wells on the existing site. <br />If the adjacent property is still privately owned, we are going to <br />have to provide some alternative well source. If we acquire that <br />property, we anticipate using one of those wells as a monitoring <br />well and probably closing off the other one. Director Pinto <br />recommended very strongly that we purchase the property. <br />Commissioner Wheeler reported that he has received calls about <br />the sulphur odors coming from the water plant and wondered if this <br />was going to relieve that problem. <br />Director Pinto stated that it would not, and pointed out the <br />greater impact if residential develops even closer. <br />Commissioner Scurlock felt the real question is whether the <br />rate payers on the system can afford all these nice things that <br />would be nice to have, because the cost of this acquisition still <br />relates back to rates. He recalled that when he sat in on the <br />selection committee with CDM, they indicated that they could site <br />it on the existing site without any additional land. Yes, there <br />are going to be some requirements for reuse and storage that were <br />never contemplated for this site; in fact, they have specifically <br />contemplated offsite. <br />Proceeding to his next question regarding the purchase of the <br />additional property, Commissioner Scurlock questioned the appraisal <br />of $393,500, when the Property Appraiser's Office carries it at a <br />just value of $1911000, which he understands is supposed to be 85% <br />of the market value. He recalled that when we acquired the Hanson <br />property on 27th Avenue and Oslo Road for a park site 3 years ago, <br />we paid $18,848 an acre. He admitted that it was a larger track <br />with 76 acres, but most of it was zoned LD -2 except for some <br />portions along Oslo Road. Apparently the subject property has been <br />on the market for quite some time. <br />79 <br />JA1 BOOK �. ,t e <br />