Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Hendriksen stated that he does not think that there is anything wrong with the <br />City being proactive and making its best guess as to what resources will be needed on a site. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski noted that if the project were being completed today, he would specify <br />six inch stubs. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen inquired if there had not already been a stub to the property, who <br />would pay for the stub to be installed. <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson replied the property owner. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson stated that he did pay for the water to be at the site. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen replied that if there was not a stub the developer would have to pay <br />the entire cost, however the City did put a stub in, which they thought would be adequate. It <br />turned out that the stub was not adequate and so some additional costs were incurred. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson stated that he wanted to focus on the storm sewer management fee. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson replied that his fee was already discounted. <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson noted that the resolution does not specify when the fee would be collected. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson replied that anyone reading the document would assume that they would be charged <br />at the subdivision level. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson replied that it is not in writing as to when the charge is collected so <br />the City was acting on past practice. <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson explained that the resolution states that the subdivision will be charged, not <br />that it will be charged at the subdivision level. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson suggested having the issue reviewed by the City Attorney. <br /> <br />Consensus of the Committee was to direct the City Attorney to review the issue and direct staff <br />to research what other cities do in similar situations. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that a policy should be drafted stating that if the City has <br />stubbed in a property, using their best informed ability to determine what is necessary and the <br />developer subsequently determines that something else is necessary, the developer has to remove <br />and cap it at their cost. <br /> <br />Case #5: Consider Correspondence from Ellen Stanley <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/February 20, 2001 <br /> Page 9 of 12 <br /> <br /> <br />