07/06/2009 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

prove we were not in a certain flood zone. Caroline Dahl called and asked Mrs. Parker for her vote (upcoming election cycle). Mrs. Parker explained the one and a half year battle. Mrs. Dahl stepped in and finally we started seeing progress. Within months the work was done and our mortgage company released us from flood insurance payments. Point of all this - it was hard enough to be faxing, calling, and trying to get progress from the flood insurance problem. We didn't have it in us to take on the water department too!!! We don't know anything about Mrs. Dahl but until that time no one at the city was willing to help us. They said they would and then did nothing. For one and a half years, nothing! Mrs. Dahl came along and within several months she kept on the engineers and they got the maps done. We don't know what we would have done. We had no pull or say and someone came along who did. We wonder - should it be like this? Should the city be more responsive to the people? Should city workers maybe even be friendly when they pick up the phone and talk to the people. Instead it seems we are interrupting and bothering them. That is how we have been treated. We are now considering moving out of the city. Who knows what they will try to charge us for next? Point #2: We want to talk about numbers now. The letter dated April 21, 2009 states that we will be charged $291.15 for the current quarter and the past 6 quarters. The spreadsheet sent shortly thereafter states that we are to be charged $283.53 for the current quarter and the past 4 quarters. Using the numbers from the spreadsheet, one could calculate that we would be charged $371.75 for the current quarter and the past 6 quarters. The current bill charges $454.09 for the current quarter and the past 6 quarters. How could one possibly reconcile these numbers and know what really should be charged? It looks like the city is just pulling numbers out of a hat. The spreadsheet conveniently leaves off our first two full bills, which we disputed as we have stated in point one above, when we moved into the house. The first bill of $106.93 would reduce the "spreadsheet" bill by $8.62. The second bill was $209.20, which was $97.71 more than our 4th quarter average for the next three years. Therefore, if the city wants to address adjustments from a malfunctioning water meter, we need to go back to the time when they refused to address it the first time. So we request a refund in the amount of $97.71 from our second bill received. It is interesting to note that the city is willing to change the water meter when it will benefit them, but unwilling to address a residents concern about a broken meter to benefit a resident. We were asked to write this letter immediately by Rick DeGardner since it has been two months since his original letter. We agree that it should not lag on for another month. This type of thing should have a statute of limitations, which brings up the point of when these discrepancies started. Our letter from the city dated April 21, 2009, states that this has been going on since September 1, 2007. That is almost 20 months! That is inexcusable. Mr. DeGardner just said he did not want us to drag out our response for three months. In our opinion, he is correct and 20 months is far too long. Let's get our meter fixed, call it even, and start fresh with a clean slate on both ends.