Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 30, 1990 <br />Council discussed the status of the City's developer <br />deposit accounts as well as what steps the City could <br />take at this point to collect these balances. <br />Alternatives include billing the unpaid balances and <br />adopting a City ordinance that will allow the balances <br />to be certified against property taxes. Council also <br />discussed the need to increase the developer deposit <br />fees upfront, with the City Administrator indicating <br />that he is studying the situation and will be making <br />some additional recommendations to the Council. <br />The City Administrator indicated that it may be <br />difficult to collect the unpaid balances that were <br />incurred prior to 1989 pointing out that the City never <br />made the property owners owing these balances aware of <br />them. However, the Administrator stated that he was <br />willing to bill these balances if that is what the <br />Council wants. The Administrator felt that the 1989 <br />and 1990 balances were current enough to invoice. <br />Scalze felt that at a basic minimum when a request is <br />made on a property where an unpaid developer deposit <br />exists, that the City collect the balance at the time <br />of the new application. <br />Fahey requested that the City Administrator put a <br />listing together of all the unpaid developer deposit <br />accounts. Fahey felt that the City had to make a <br />conscience effort to collect this money. <br />The Administrator was not sure how much detail could be <br />put together for the older accounts, that detail being <br />the break-down of costs as incurred by various City <br />consultants. The Administrator pointed out that the <br />City's application form says that the applicant is <br />responsible for costs incurred as part of the <br />application, however, these costs are not identified. <br />Fahey suggested that the matter be discussed with the <br />City Attorney. Fahey felt that at a minimum the 1989 <br />and 1990 costs should be billed. Any costs that cannot <br />be billed, should be written off. <br />The Administrator thought there was some action taken <br />by the Council on the unpaid developer deposits as part <br />of the 1989 Audit. The Administrator also reported <br />that he is working on a boiler plate development <br />agreement that recognizes that there may be additional <br />costs as part of the application that the applicant <br />will be responsible for and will be billed for. <br />Collova felt that the initial developer deposit amount <br />Page 7 <br />