Laserfiche WebLink
City of Centerville <br /> Council Meeting Minutes <br /> March 27, 2013 <br /> share of the watertower and the $6,350 fee was for the contractor's construction costs to install <br /> the watermain in the roadway. <br /> Council Member Paar stated that making these types of decisions are very difficult for Council <br /> Members, with the economic down turn, projects are difficult for the City and residents alike, <br /> sunset dates for connection and future Council decisions, 2004 Pavement Management Plan <br /> adherence, budgeting for future road projects, maintenance and his belief that with the roadway <br /> construction water should be installed at the same time saving funding and potential roadway <br /> repairs due to later installation of water main. <br /> An individual from the audience questioned whether driveways could be reconstructed along <br /> with the roadway by the City's contractor. Engineer Statz stated that this would be a private <br /> agreement between the resident and the contractor. The City cannot assess for such services. <br /> Engineer Statz explained that the City's contractor would make every effort in limiting driveway <br /> damage by ensuring if the resident currently had a concrete driveway it would be removed at the <br /> nearest joint and that if the resident had an asphalt driveway only the necessary needed surface <br /> would be disturbed. Pavements would be replaced with like materials (concrete with concrete <br /> and asphalt with asphalt). <br /> Engineer Statz stated that the fees for connection inside the home was a pass through from the <br /> contractor ($879); however, the $400 permits /inspection fee contained the contractor's fees, City <br /> inspection and City Staff time for gaining access to the basement to determine footage and <br /> proper location of interior piping for the proper service line boring footage rather than the <br /> estimate that had originally been given to homeowners of 65 feet. Engineer Statz stated that <br /> generally three separate appointments are needed to complete this internal work. <br /> Council Member Paar requested that the $400 Permits /Inspection fee be placed on Council's <br /> next agenda for conversation. <br /> Discussion was had regarding at what point the resident becomes responsible for the water line, <br /> to the curb stop and to the watermain. Attorney Glaser stated that the piping in the home and to <br /> the curb stop and including the curb stop is the homeowner's responsibility. From the curb stop <br /> to the shutoff valve is the City's responsibility. <br /> Mr. Cory Padrnos, 1874 Center Street stated that he felt that the reason why the City is not <br /> assessing all of the costs is that the percentage of benefit to the property would not meet the state <br /> statute guidelines and that is why the City is requesting that the assessments be split and a waiver <br /> of right to appeal is being requested if you desire to connect to the water. Mr. Padrnos again <br /> stated that he was opposed to the water, its mandatory connection date of 2021 and the <br /> associated assessment; however, he was agreeable to the street reconstruction. <br /> Clifford Lutz, 1850 Center Street stated that generally the assessment is based upon front <br /> footage of a lot and that could be the difference. Mr. Lutz stated that he felt his assessment was <br /> too high and the City did not give him credit for the previous footage that they charged for the <br /> 2009 Street Improvement Project due to the fact that his property is located on a corner lot and <br /> he was assessed for all of the footage along Dupre Road and just a portion of Center Street and <br /> the City is trying to reassess him for that same footage along Center Street. Engineer Statz stated <br /> Page 4 of 9 <br /> P4 <br />