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 17 <br /> klihro It was clarified if she had to drill another well she could do it because there <br /> wouldn't be any more water used than before. <br /> Ms. Dorman asked how the public could get the reports and papers from <br /> the packet they needed to look at when there was an item of interest, how <br /> it was put on the agenda and why it didn't have a name with it on who <br /> created it. Mayor Simmons explained most agenda items were staff <br /> driven and the staff got together to discuss the items to be placed on the <br /> agenda; then the manager, clerk, attorney and Mayor got together to <br /> review the items and the agenda was put together, copied and distributed. <br /> He said that a copy of the packet was available in the lobby several days <br /> before the meeting for the public. <br /> Councilman Lamerson made the following points: <br /> • policies of the State were conflicting; <br /> • current standards for arsenic and other water quality standards <br /> which apply to municipalities do not apply to exempt wells; <br /> • the City had to pay for arsenic removal but exempt well owners <br /> didn't; <br /> • the AMA had to reach safe yield but exempt well owners could <br /> pump as much water as they wanted to; <br /> • there was no accountability of safe yield or any arsenic <br /> responsibility; <br /> • exempt wells in the AMA increased by 30%; <br /> • ADWR qualified one of their decisions that due to high impact fees <br /> and the cost of hooking into the city water lines, a resident could <br /> drill an exempt well instead. <br /> Councilman Lamerson wanted the proliferation of exempt wells stopped <br /> and wanted to see the State change the law in allowing residents to drill <br /> an exempt well instead of tying into the city system; ADWR needed to <br /> clarify their policies regarding exempt well owners and assured water <br /> providers and municipalities; the City was trying to reach safe yield and <br /> treat arsenic and the State policies did not support that. <br /> Ms. Tucker said that a new law went into effect on January 1 that <br /> prohibited exempt wells from being drilled within 100 feet of a water <br /> provider's system, unless it cost more to hook up to the water provider's <br /> system, so it doesn't help in their AMA because the City's impact fees <br /> make it more costly to hook up to the system rather than drill their own <br /> well. <br /> Howard Mechanic, 309 Bloom Place — He said that Ms. Dorman asked <br /> where she could get the full resolution and he noted that there was a book <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.