Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. LeFevere stated that 8.9.1 says that as part of the total, all fees and charges would be <br />collected - that would be inclusive of everything except the plumber's charge to take it up to the <br />house. <br /> <br />Ms. Muehlhauser asked with the current Charter - what's the assessment process on non- <br />petitioning areas. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that currently, if the City wants to do a special assessment project, we <br />receive a petition or the City Council can order a project. We hold a public hearing; there is a <br />60-day waiting period so people could petition against the project. If 50 percent petition against <br />it, the City cannot take action on that. They can go back and forth and wherever the petition is at <br />at the end of the 60 days is what goes. You have to be benefited in order to pay an assessment. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec asked for clarification of if the sewer line runs by Ms. Muehlhauser and she does <br />not want to hook up, does she have to. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich replied no - she does not have to hook up. <br /> <br />Ms. Muehlhauser stated she has no problem with the connection fee - what she has a problem <br />with is if she would be forced to hook up. She agreed she should have to pay someone to do that <br />but she did not want to be told she has to hook up or pay. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that if a person's system fails, you have the opportunity to fix your system <br />versus hooking up to City sewer and water. <br /> <br />Councihnember Cook stated the City is not charging developers full cost of the pipes because <br />pipes have the potential to benefit other property owners. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated these fees come out of the people who are on sewer and water right now. <br /> <br />Ms. Muehlhauser echoed that the current Charter already protects citizens. <br /> <br />Mr. Zaetsch stated the sponsors of this petition are present at the meeting. Mr. Zaetsch referred <br />to 8.9.3 that limits paying money to advance sewer and water for someone who wants to develop <br />properties. That's not a property right. This is the one that seems to be getting all the flack. It <br />says the City should not bear the cost. The City is now charging more than the properties are <br />benefited and referred to the enterprise fund. He stated the City has been overcharging people. <br />People have a right to vote against the City making expenditures; if a Home Rule Charter cannot <br />control that, it cannot control anything. It's not manifestly unconstitutional to say the City <br />cannot spend money in the ways they are. State Statues, page 3 of Mr. Baker's letter, the Blaine <br />case - the City can restrict extension of sewer and water. The City can choose but the issue here <br />is part of the escrow fund and charging some property owners and not others. <br /> <br />Mr. Baker replied that is the point. <br /> <br />Mr. Zaetsch stated that escrow is the key. <br /> <br />City Council - Special Meeting May 18, 2005 <br /> Page 7 of 12 <br /> <br /> <br />