Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Lattu asked why the City gets a hook up fee if it is not involved in the hook up. City <br />Attorney Hoeft indicated the water access charge was established as a capital <br />improvement charge to allow residents to hook up to City water which is a benefit and a <br />part of the charge is a capital charge to pay for overall water system maintenance and <br />future improvements. <br /> <br />Mr. Lattu asked if there was an option for the developer to pay more and the City to pay <br />less as he feels the developer benefits more from the proj ect and should pay for that <br />benefit. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated that residents have the benefit of fire <br />protection for the home and the difference in value of a home with City water versus a <br />home with a well. <br /> <br />Council Member Travis commented that the wells would eventually fail and, at that time, <br />water is available and the resident would not have to pay to have a new well drilled. <br /> <br />Mr. Lattu asked if the residents involved were able to vote on the matter or were just able <br />to voice an opinion. The Council Members indicated that they would hear resident <br />opinion but noted that Council makes the vote. <br /> <br />Mr. Mark Vargo, representing Mr. Rehbein, addressed Council and indicated the <br />developer would be willing to pay 25% ofthe costs to extend the watermain. He then <br />commented that any more cost to the developer would not be agreeable in light of the fact <br />that the developer would have all the costs associated with extending water from the <br />comer of the property to each of the ten lots. He also commented that Water Works <br />would be receiving the benefit of reduced insurance because of the ability to provide <br />sprinkler protection for the property and should be assessed more of the costs. <br /> <br />Council Member Capra asked if Staff had received any calls concerning the watermain <br />extension. <br /> <br />Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated she had received a call from two residents. One had called to <br />ask why he received a notice when he already has City water. She then noted she had left <br />a message for the other resident but had not spoken to him to determine his concern. <br /> <br />Mr. Prank Zimley of 7252 Lavell Drive noted his letter had been sent to the wrong <br />address of 7252 Main Street. He then indicated that the sewer bill comes to the proper <br />address of 7252 Lavell Drive. Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated that Staff had used an <br />outdated map and apologized for the error. <br /> <br />Mr. Zimley indicated he is very happy with his well and said he feels that the well will <br />last for several more years with routine maintenance. He then commented that the <br />property between his property and Water Works should be assessed for more of the costs <br />because there is the potential for development. He also asked why the reduction in <br />Option Three was not shared with the developer for The Shores. <br /> <br />Page 4 of 28 <br />