Laserfiche WebLink
Attorney dated February 15th stating that in his opinion the fees were inappropriately charged and <br />should be refunded. His Attorney stated in the letter that if City refuses to refund the fee then <br />they should provide those reasons in writing as to why the City refuses to refund the money, so <br />they can decide how to proceed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman inquired if the charge applied at the time of application or when the <br />site plan is approved. <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson replied that the storm water trunk charge has typically been collected during <br />the site plan review process. He presented the Committee with a handout that indicated the fees <br />that had been collected during the site plan review process and which had been collected at the <br />initiation of the project. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman inquired as to what other cities do in situations when a pipe has to <br />be capped off. <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson replied that he was not sure what other cities do. Mr. Olson reviewed the <br />costs that were involved with capping off the four-inch pipe. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec inquired if a six-inch pipe had originally been installed would the developer still <br />have been required to de-water the site. <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson replied yes. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that he thinks that it makes sense for the City to provide stubs <br />for anticipated development, but the question is will the City be penalized for doing a good thing. <br />If a developer needs a larger pipe then the City ends up paying twice. He suggested drafting City <br />Code that would state that if a larger pipe is needed than what was originally installed than the <br />developer has to pay for the larger pipe and the capping of the existing pipe. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson replied that a four inch pipe should never been installed because it is inadequate for <br />the lot size. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson inquired if it would have been better if the City had not ran water to <br />the site. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson replied that he paid for the utilities when they subdivided the lots and assumed that <br />those lines would have been adequate to serve the property. He was told by his contractor that <br />those costs should have been a City charge not a charge to the general contractor. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec inquired as to the cost involved with the four-inch pipe. <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson replied that $2,100 was the cost to remove the 4 inch pipe. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/February 20, 2001 <br /> Page 8 of 12 <br /> <br /> <br />