Agenda - Council - 10/24/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CASE WATER/SEWER CONNECTION CHARGES By: Ryan R. Schroeder, City Administrator Background; At the September 26, 1995 meeting, Council considered award of a petitioned-for sewer/water lXoject in an existing rural subdivision. The project was tabled. At the meeting, staff proposed consideration of an amendment to the utility connection requirement policy. No action was taken on this proposal. On October 3; 1995, Council held a special meeting during which the connection policy was formally iintroduced for amendment. It was tabled to the October 24 meeting. Enclosed for ybur review is the policy that was proposed. With public ir0Provements such as this one, there are really two separate cost areas charged by the City. The first is for the public improvement itself. These costs for an 80-foot urban lot typically average $8,000 to $9,000. The connection charges include SAC/WAC fees of $2,32Yand often trunk charges of $1,539/unit in 1995. These fees total $3,864 in 1995. Given the above, the typical costs/unit could be expected to be: (if financed over 10 years) :Public Improvement Connection $8,000 principle $3,864 11% interest 11% $I,358.41 annual payment $656.11 $5,584.11 total interest cost $2,697.13 The question is, should the municipal utility customer pay additional costs in order to lessen the bqrden upon the homeowner (or anyone else) who received a utility improvement when he or she was opposed to the improvement? And if so, to what degree? First, on the public improvement itself, the only difference between an example such as Bison Street (With petitioners against) and Haubrich Addition (with petitioners against) is the cost. Of c6.urse, the cost difference is created by the addition of utilities, but it is still a public improvement with all the rights to the property owners available under State Statute and City Charier. Simply, we cannot assess beyond the improvement to the property. If we do, the pr ,o~erty owner has remedies through the court system. If we benefitted the property with a, market value increase, should the municipal utility customers grant and pay for an additiohal benefit of deferred payments? Perhaps not. State Statute allows deferments foridisability and income reasons with age restrictions but does not provide the same to the abl~-bodied middle class. Perhaps a different situation exists for connection fees and requirements. While the Metropolitan C, ouncil and others provide two-year connection requirements, certainly a strong argument exists that existing private systems should be allowed a reasonable amortization. ,Examples exist in case law for such as adult uses and billboards wherein the owner is allowed a reasonable amount of time within which to recover his initial investment #6