2013-03-27 CC Minutes - Approved

Home Browse Search

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