My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC - Minutes - City Council - 9/19/2006
>
City Clerk
>
Permanent Records
>
Permanent
>
CC - Minutes - City Council - 9/19/2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2020 12:18:47 PM
Creation date
11/12/2018 2:42:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC - Minutes
Department
City Clerk
Sub
Clerk Records
Content
Minutes
Committee Status
Current
Document Type
City Council
Meeting Type
STUDY SESSION
Meeting Date
9/19/2006
Retention
Permanent
Retention Type
Permanent
Security
Public
Scanner
Conversion
Scan Date
9/19/2006
Record Series
GS1016, #10260
Conversion Meeting Type
STUDY
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 16 <br /> with anything if their water wasn't up to standards; but the Environmental <br /> Protection Agency wasn't going to change the water quality standards. <br /> Councilman Lamerson maintained the resolution would not be a futile <br /> effort; the State allowed property owners to drill an exempt well because <br /> the charge of the hookup to the City of Prescott water supply was more <br /> than the cost of drilling a well and yet the City was under a mandate to <br /> reach safe yield and that was a conflict in policies that he wanted to have <br /> addressed. <br /> Dar Rosito, 2155 Chickadee Creek, Mullen Way area—Appreciated the <br /> opportunity to comment; was not in favor of going in this direction;he was <br /> willing to pay to have water and sewer and that was the reason they <br /> annexed into the city; but it was disgraceful how they were treated; cost <br /> estimates kept changing, going higher and higher and there was a real <br /> lack of performance on the city's part. He said they were deceived on the <br /> project and now the Council had the potential of cutting him off from the <br /> only water he had; he didn't need the government to tell him what was <br /> right; he would end up having to haul in water and the city didn't have the <br /> right to deprive him of the use of his well. He asked if that wouldn't be a <br /> taking of his property. <br /> Councilman Lamerson asked Attorney Kidd if this resolution applied to <br /> kW' existing wells and Mr. Kidd replied no,it was the proliferation of new wells. <br /> Mr. Rosito asked if the resolution stated that existing wells would be <br /> exempt and that it applied only to new wells and Attorney Kidd read a <br /> portion of the proposed Resolution No.3778: <br /> "Whereas, the exemption of such wells from water quality standards poses <br /> an unfair and unequal treatment among classes of users and if the EPA <br /> regulations are intended for public safety due to perceived health risks, <br /> allows these risks to be assumed by persons creating exempt wells in the <br /> Prescott AMA." <br /> Mr. Rosito apologized because he did not have the complete resolution, <br /> only the title that was on the agenda. <br /> Yvonne Dorman, 1335 Mullen Way—she didn't have the attitude that she <br /> had hers and didn't care what happened to other people and she felt the <br /> same way Mr. Rosito did; it didn't seem right for Big Brother to come into <br /> her house. She asked what would happen if her well didn't meet the <br /> standards or stopped producing enough water—where she would get <br /> water. She asked what would happen if the well began to produce <br /> enough water again or if she had to drill another well because hers gave <br /> out—if she would have to follow the new rules. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.