Laserfiche WebLink
City of Centerville <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />March 10, 2021 <br />Motion by Council Member Koski , seconded by Council Member Lakso to Approve Items <br />#1, #2, and #7 of the Consent Agenda, as presented. A roll-call vote was taken. Mayor Love <br />and Council Members Lakso, King, Koski & Mosher voted in favor. Motion carried. <br />Administrator Statz asked to run through the revisions to these documents before Council Member <br />King asked his questions or made his comments. He explained that that an individual is interested <br />in purchasing the former Vincenzo Catering Service property, as well as the property to the south <br />which is under joint ownership. The City ordinance states that upon the sale of the property, the <br />property must be connect to municipal water. He stated that the prospective buyer has approached <br />him regarding the policy and stated that his intent is to redevelop the property in the near future. <br />He stated that the City would like to foster the development spirit by being helpful if possible. He <br />stated that staff shared information regarding the program to offer half price fees and offered the <br />option of assessing those fees to the property or entering into an agreement to escrow funds to <br />complete the work if for some reason the development did not happen within a certain period of <br />time similar to other businesses and locations. <br />The prospective buyer asked if the City could do a 5-year sunset to either redevelop the property <br />or to connect to municipal water. He reminded the Council that the cost to connect is generally <br />around $18,000, which can be a hindrance to redevelopment when the City is attempting to <br />encourage redevelopment. He stated that the idea behind escrowing these funds with a sunset date <br />would be as an incentive to redevelop and put the funds away to ensure that there is the ability to <br />force the connection if redevelopment fails. He explained that there are four agreements because <br />there are two different properties and two different things happening: assessing the connection <br />fees; escrowing the funds for the physical hook-up. He noted that the reason there are four (4) <br />agreements as there are two (2) separate properties with connection fees that will be assessed to <br />the property taxes and the necessity to ensure that the physical connection is completed and paid <br />for. <br /> <br />Administrator Statz explained the fees in the agreements and explained that the original escrow <br />agreement had 150% of the cost and that has been revised to 100% and an added a clause that the <br />quotes will be updated on a regular basis ensuring that the funds escrowed meet the required fees. <br />He reiterated that the City has done this with other properties in the past. He stated he is <br />recommending that change be made to both escrow agreements. He noted that only one of the <br />assessment agreements are changing and should <br />payment in full for a lateral benefit fee and four (4) <br />has four (4) residential equivalent hook-ups: the catering business has two (2) and the apartments <br />up above have two (2). He explained that the discount is 50% of the fees that are on the assessment <br />agreement, so the subject parcel would pay $7,700 which without the discount program would <br />have been $15,400. <br />Council Member King asked if the $18,000 connection cost was for each property. <br />Administrator Statz stated the escrow totals $18,000 and explained that the existing owner <br />obtained a quote from Olson Sewer, to complete both connections which totaled $18,000. <br />Council Member King asked about page 23, paragraph he cost listed below <br />that satisfies payment in full for a lateral benefit fee and a water access fee. The amount listed <br />Page 3 of 8 <br />6 <br /> <br />