Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Council Member Stigney was in favor of following the City Attorney’s recommendation. The City Attorney’s comments were reviewed with Ms. Ness. <br /> <br />Council Member Hull stated he did have a toilet that ran constantly and this did increase his water bill dramatically. He commented this could be the case with the Ness family and could <br /> account for the water used. He added that the lack of response was also a concern to him. <br /> <br />Council Member Mueller reviewed the water usage for Ms. Ness on a quarterly basis for the years 2000 and 2001. She noted several quarters did have usage over 47 units. She did not <br /> feel it was right to ask another resident to cover the expense of this outstanding water bill. She commented the City was generous in not adding late fees or interest. She apologized <br /> for the problem with the water meter and wished the issue would have been resolved in a more timely manner. <br /> <br />Ms. Ness did not understand that she was asking her neighbors to cover her water bill. That was not her intention. <br /> <br />Finance Director Beer commented the water meter for Ms. Ness was replaced in 1998. He reported the City received regular readings each quarter from that time until 2004. For this reason, <br /> he felt it was highly unlikely that the meter “stuck”. <br /> <br />Council Member Gunn indicated the test results for the meter were clear. She noted the water consumption was clear and she would have to agree with the Council on this matter. <br /> <br />Mayor Flaherty found it difficult to come up with findings of fact with this case. He stated the numbers were not far off and it was apparent that Ms. Ness used more than the estimated <br /> 25 units of water per quarter over the four years in question. He had to follow the recommendations of Staff based on the water meter test results and the information presented this <br /> evening. He apologized for the situation. <br /> <br />Ms. Ness asked she could work out a payment plan with the City. Finance Director Beer stated the outstanding amount was scheduled to be certified with the County to be assessed against <br /> Ms. Ness’ property. In order to reverse this, the Council would need to remove this item from the pending assessment roll. He did not recommend establishing a payment plan as no progress <br /> has been made over the past 15 months. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ericson requested the Council make a formal motion on this issue. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Deny the Request of Resident Becky Ness at 6942 Pleasant View Drive for an Adjustment to her Water Bill. <br /> <br /> Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.