Laserfiche WebLink
City of Centerville <br />City Council Meeting Minutes <br />September 11, 2019 <br />regarding watermain assessments and established a fee in lieu of assessment (Water Lateral Benefit <br />Charge - $8,000). He also stated that upon connection to the municipal water system, a water access <br />fee of $1,850 (water tower and wells) is charged along with a water meter, plumbing permit fee and <br />the water lateral benefit fee. He stated that the water connection from the curb stop to the home is <br />the individual’s responsibility and each home is unique regarding footage and subsequent costs <br />associated with trenching or boring that water line. He reported that the City Council may authorize <br />those fees to be specially assessed to the parcel at the property owner’s request. He stated that these <br />fees would be covered if the individuals qualified for the CDBG grant. <br /> <br />Mr. Busse stated that he desired for a cul- de-sac at the end of Heritage Street due to the numerous <br />vehicles turning around in his driveway. <br /> <br />Administrator Statz stated that a “hammer head” ending on the roadway (vacated Clearwater Road) <br />is being considered. He stated that constructing a full cul-de-sac would impact individual’s yards <br />but he stated that the City would continue to discuss the matter. <br /> <br />Mayor Paar questioned whether posting of a “no outlet” sign would help. It was stated that there <br />already exists a sign but it may need to be relocated. He also stated that if funds were available, <br />looking into the idea of a cul-de-sac would be taken into consideration. <br /> <br />Ms. Vicki Byrne, Owner of Kelly’s Korner, 7098 Centerville Road, had concerns over the vacant <br />property and asked if the assessments have always been 50% for vacant properties. <br /> <br />Administrator Statz stated that in the past, all road projects have been in areas zoned residential and <br />have been assessed with a home on it and in this case the property is zoned M-1 or M-2 which is <br />Mixed Use and could be developed as Commercial (residential/retail). The City Administrator stated <br />that is the way we chose to do it but that is open for discussion. <br /> <br />Ms. Byrne stated that the neighbor who has a home is being assessed approximately $7,000 and they <br />are being assessed approximately $15,000 for a vacant piece of property. <br />City Attorney Glaser stated that per State Statute the City assess parcels at their highest and best use. <br />Being that the parcel could be developed as Commercial, as its zoning allows that is what it is being <br />assessed at. <br /> <br />Mayor Paar questioned whether if Ms. Byrne’s property was assessed at a lower rate than 50% would <br />the remainder of the individuals benefiting from the project numbers increase. City Administrator <br />stated that would be the same as the City owned property. He stated that nowhere in the City’s <br />assessment policy does it say a percentage of the costs will be assessed. He also stated that it is a <br />project, by project thought process, past practice has been to stay within the 20-25% range. If you <br />remain at 20% and make all adjustments and recalculate but in practice it is easier to set dollar rate <br />to propose and if change to 25% then recalculate. If change a few properties that are vacant and if <br />Council desires they can modify that. <br /> <br />Mr. Steven King, 1724 Sorel Street, questioned whether he would need to remove all apparatus <br />inside his home once connected to municipal water. He questioned whether he could install a hand <br />pump on the existing well. <br /> <br />Page 4 of 11 <br /> <br /> <br />