Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 12, 1993 <br />the past, but felt this was a problem from a benefits <br />received standpoint. <br />The City Attorney stated that it was legally possible <br />to assess this cost, but suggested there may be <br />objection from some of the property owners. <br />The Administrator felt that some would object and some <br />not, and there was the concern of double-charging. The <br />Administrator felt that to begin assessing at this <br />point would increase the likelihood for a mistake. <br />Morelan pointed out that the fee goes toward payment <br />for the water tower as well as its upkeep and <br />maintenance. The question is when someone realizes <br />benefit from the water tower and water system. Given <br />that line of thinking, it makes sense to collect the <br />fee at the time of connection to the system. <br />Meis reported that when he took out his water permit he <br />was not charged the $300, but was billed for it a few <br />days later. Meis reported that he has not yet paid the <br />fee since his plumber has not been able to connect to <br />the water main due to the high water table. However, <br />he received a notice from the City to pay the WAC or he <br />would be charged interest. <br />The City Administrator reported that there was a <br />problem initially when some residents pulled their <br />permits in that staff forgot to charge the WAC. The <br />Administrator reported that there would be no problem <br />with Meis paying the $300 at the time his plumber is <br />able to connect to the system. <br />Scalze indicated that the City would work with property <br />owners on an individual basis to make sure these <br />matters are taken care of correctly. <br />Paul Gerber, 2951 Edgerton, asked when the $300 would <br />be charged to him. <br />The City Administrator replied that the $30o is charged <br />when property owners take out their water connection <br />permit. <br />Mike Peyer, 2900 Vanderbie Street, pointed out the 100% <br />assessment for curb and gutter, and reported that the <br />the curbing machine broke down in his driveway, which <br />resulted in a bad pour. Peyer also reported that the <br />next day his driveway was redone, and there are voids <br />in the area where the expansion joint meets the <br />curbing. Peyer was concerned that water and ice would <br />get into these voids and heaving the driveway. Peyer <br />Page 9 <br />