Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 12, 1993 <br />added to project ($2,280.86 vs. $2,328.30). <br />The Administrator thanked the residents along Vanderbie <br />and Al1en Avenue for their patience during the project, <br />noting that weather conditions made the project a tough <br />one to construct, and there was a lot of mud and <br />inconvenience during the course of the project. <br />Gary Meis, 2992 Vanderbie, challenged the City's $300 <br />water availability charge. Meis pointed out that he is <br />paying a$6,000 assessment plus $1,400 to a contractor <br />to connect to City water. Meis questioned the reason <br />for the $300 WAC charge. Meis felt that the City has <br />done nothing to earn that money and was giving the <br />property owners nothing in return. Meis reported that <br />staff has indicated that the money is used for cleaning <br />storm sewers and operating the water tower. Meis <br />pointed out that some residents will never connect to <br />City water, and suggested that these residents should <br />participate in the cost of cleaning storm sewers and <br />operating the water tower. <br />The City Administrator reported that this fee had been <br />assessed in the past. It is not used to cover the cost <br />of cleaning storm sewers, but put toward the debt <br />service for the 1978 bond issue which built the water <br />tower, booster station, and trunk services. The $300 <br />is a user connection fee and over the years the City <br />has collected this fee to keep down the amount of taxes <br />that must be levied for debt service on the 1978 bond. <br />The Administrator pointed out that property taxes are <br />also collected for debt service on this bond issue, <br />therefore, property owners not connected to City water <br />are also contributing toward these costs. The <br />Administrator indicated that it was tough to decide <br />when property owners should have to pay this $300 WAC <br />charge, and indicated that it did not seem right to <br />collect from property owners prior to their connection <br />to the City's water system. Therefore, the City has <br />been collecting as people connect. <br />Meis pointed out that he is paying for a system that <br />others derive some benefit from. <br />The Administrator agreed that property owners not <br />connected to water do benefit from a fire protection <br />standpoint and from the availability of a future <br />connection. The Administrator reported that when the <br />water system was first constructed, there were many <br />costs that the entire City paid. <br />Meis asked if the $300 could be added to the <br />assessment. <br />The Administrator replied that this has been done in <br />Page 8 <br />