Minutes - Council - 10/22/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

rights and what happens in septic and/or well failure and lot splits. He noted the ordinance provided by City Attorney Goodrich. City Attorney Goodrich stated that this ordinance is an attempt to implement and coordinate with Chapter 8.6. You should understand that 8.6 does not direct us to adopt an ordinance. It's conceivable the City could get by without adopting the ordinance but he felt it's good to have more answers to questions. You are not required to have a public hearing for this but you can. The definition of functional system - it complies with the health codes of the City and State. It seemed important there be a standard to define functional. The term original assessment means the initial assessment amount which would have been assessed and levied against a property for an improvement project which first extended sewer and/or water to the property. He explained that an assessment, which is consistent with the original assessment, is that amount which would be assessed and levied against a property for an improvement project which extended sewer and/or water to the property as if these services were installed at the time the property connects to the City's sewer and/or water utilities. Repair of the system - there is a time when once functional becomes a non-functional system. The system shall be deemed non-functional if a repair of either such system first requires a permit from the City, State, and/or any other regulatory agency. Upon determining that either a private sewer system, a water system, a private water system, or both need repair, the City's Building Official shall certify both of said systems as "non-functional". An existing home which is serviced by a non-functional sewer and/or water system shall be required to connect to both the City sewer and City water systems within six months of the date on which either of the said systems was declared non-functional by the City's Building Official. Upon sale or transfer of the home by the property owner who elected to remain on a functional private sewer and/or water system, and whose property was therefore not assessed for City utilities, the City may levy an assessment on this property in an amount consistent with the original assessment. The City's public property records will reflect that any property not assessed because the property owner elected to remain on a functional private sewer and/or water system is subject to a pending sewer and/or water system assessment or connection charge when said property connects to either the City's sewer or water system. In summary, the staff person designated to answer special assessment calls would say there are none at this time, but maybe at some time in the future, they could be assessed for hook-up to City services when their system fails. This would be consistent with the original assessment. Section 7 deals with electing to remain on a functional, private system. The property owner would receive notice of a public hearing. If they intend to remain on their functional, private system, they would need to notify the City prior to the public hearing, or in writing the evening of the public hearing. Councilmember Zimmerman suggested that with repair of the system, we would look at the percent of the total replacement cost rather than any specific repairs. Councilmember Beyer stated that an entire drainfield would be a major cost. Councilmembers Zimmerman and Beyer felt that a public hearing should be held. Terry Hendriksen, 15631 Ramsey Boulevard NW, stated he is present to discuss the alleged project shortfall. He showed figures from the feasibility study and from conversations with the City Engineer. He referred to the figures as what he believes they are and what the City believes they are. (See Exhibits A, B and C.) The sewer to Fox Knoll was ordered by the City prior to anything for the Haubrich Addition. The watermain to Fox Knoll goes down 151st. That was also ordered prior. There was extra work to accommodate the Haubrich addition, so $6,000 in cost is justified, but $25,000 is not. Outside engineering, there is not objection to the amount there. The City overhead to repay engineering and administrative time - you are not justified that much overhead. We should get something for our taxes. He stated he has no problem with the $8,300 for storm sewer. He put $46,000 for streets in both columns but did not feel that the City expended that amount of money. City Council/October 22, 1996 Page 7 of 13