minutes
Minutes-7 /19/1982
Dated July 19, 1982City Council — regular meeting, July 19, 1982 10 pages
Ord. 1982-105, Ord. 20, Ord. 22, Res. 1982-008
Page 4 of 10
Text read by the vision model; check the PDF for anything that matters.Agreement will be recordable form so future owners will have it. City has considerable amount of land within limits which does not have services. Would not annex any other land unless asked by owners to do so. Attorney explained ownership of road and recommended a 28E agreement with county.
Murray: What about Planning and Zoning Commission review?
Stoffer: Miss Potterfield is in a time bind because her house is waiting on a truck to be set up.
Williams: Don't want this annexed. It will have a snowball effect from here on out.
Chris Rohret: A lot of things need to be looked at before voting. Setting precedent for water and sewer service. Need to look at total plan.
Brown: Only had four days notice for special meeting. The only people here were from the hill. I talked to several other people tonight and they do not have any objections. This one residence has nothing to do with other annexations.
Cox: How will we pay for better facilities if we don't get more property in town?
Engineer Kammerer: One way to increase taxes in order to handle all services is to grow. Don't go out and annex wide tracts of land. Look at plans and consider providing services to it first.
Johnston: What I'm hearing is that annexation of this tract will not be negative. It has no appreciable effect on water and sewer and it brings in more revenue. The two annexations are separate issues. Miss Potterfield would have to put down septic tank which is not a good thing. The set back requirements for the county are different than for the city and house would not be in as good a location. Her annexation does not change the council's outlook on future annexations.
Brown: Before city expands radically I'd like to see the fringe study. Unfortunately, don't have that to look at now. I don't see how this one parcel of land could be detriment to municipality.
Brotherton: City does not have comprehensive plan. Has not been approached before. Now we feel the need for one.
Murray: I want to know more about it. What are the grinder implications? It's scary to rush things without understanding all of the components. Get things worked out before the agreement.
Stoffer: Grinder pump is a high grade sump pump and costs about $3,500.00. Any mechanical system sooner or later needs maintenance. It's usually not the first or second choice. In this case it is the only option except for a septic tank. Any maintenance is Miss Potterfield's responsibility. Each case is judged on its own merits. There are about forty in the county now.
Engineer Kammerer: The grinder combines a pump and garbage disposal so it can't plug the pump. Low pressure forces the fluid out. If have to go with pumping system, this is o.k. Make it clear that it is totally Miss Potterfield's maintenance and she has no claim on the city.
Sources
- laserfiche: Minutes-7 /19/1982 (Minutes-7 -19-1982.pdf) — where it was found ↗ first seen Oct 12, 2026
Data last updated October 15, 2026. Built from the archive's documents; see how the data is built.