Laserfiche WebLink
MEMO TO: Clori:-Administrator <br />Mayor and City Council �1 <br />FROM. Duildinq lnsptactor I`vl <br />DATE: January 1G, 1984 <br />SUBJECT: REQUEST POR REFUND ON SEWER SERVICE INSTALLATION AT <br />25811181 CoUlITY ROAD I <br />Attached is a request for payment of a sewer service installation <br />from Mr. Roger U. Koopmeiners, builder and owner of the two-family <br />dwelling at 2581/83 County Road I. City as-builts indicated that <br />a sewer service was available for the lot at the above address but <br />at the time of the sewer installation the service could not be <br />found. Either the service was never installed or the location was <br />drastically off as given in the as-builts. Since a service could <br />not be found the contractor then had to dig down to the main and <br />tap for the service. City records indicate that the lot was <br />originally assessed $295.21 for a sewer service lateral. Attached <br />with the request for payment are invoices from the sewer and water <br />contractor and the paying contractor for work involved in the <br />installation of the sewer service which totaled $1,401.00. <br />The history of such requests is very limited due to difficulties <br />in finding any. Only one could be found dating back to 1981. <br />In that case a water service had been assessed for but was unable <br />to be found. The Council then ordered the installation at a cost <br />of $675.00, with the work being done by the private contractor. <br />The original assessed cost for the service was $106.00. <br />The following are the optionS staff would offer: <br />1. The City could refund the assessed cost of the service, plus <br />interest from the date of the actual assessment. <br />2. Establish a maximum limit, i.e., today's average assessed <br />cost for service installations. <br />3. Authorize payment of the bills as submitted. <br />RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend options 1 or 2 in t9at order. <br />Although there exists one case in the past regarding this type of <br />an occurrence, it would be in the City's best interest to establish <br />or know the maximum liability in these types of occurrences. Again, <br />this matter has been discussed with the City Attorney and he concurs <br />with this recommendation. Staff will await Council direction in <br />this matter. <br />�. SAR/pf <br />Attachments <br />