CC_Minutes_2024_0226 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, February 26, 2024 Page 4 Mayor Roe indicated the title of the Ordinance title still shows "Require Water Meter Security Deposit" and he wondered if it should read "Require Water Meter Fee". Mr. Freihammer agreed it should probably be changed. He noted at the next Council meeting,staff will bring forward a fee schedule update to reflect the change from security deposit to a fee. Mr. Trudgeon noted, regarding the water meter deposit, the staff report mentions that the deposits will be returned over a period of forty to fifty years as people sell their home. After conversations with a couple of Councilmembers, there is interest in returning the water meter deposits to the homeowners on a more accelerated schedule. He noted as a reminder,most of the City's funds are tied up in non-liquid assets so it will take some time to return all of the deposits.He suggested staff bring forward a plan to look at proactively refunding these amounts over a period of years. However,nothing needs to be done in regard to that because it is not written in the Code to be paid back in a certain way. Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Trudgeon for bringing that up because it could be on the public's mind that if the City does not need the deposits and still have some of the residents' money,why it is not being refunded to them. Councilmember Groff asked how it is handled if a meter breaks. Mr. Freihammer explained if it breaks due to the resident, the City Code stipulates the homeowner will pay for the new meter and if the meter were to just stop working, the City would replace the meter at the City's cost. Public Comment Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for public comment. Mr. Roger Hess,Wagener Place Mr. Hess asked what costs is the City trying to recover with the new fee. He also asked how many meters disappear each year where a security deposit was added. He agreed the money should be refunded as soon as possible but he was not sure if the Council should postpone the vote on this because when the email was sent out about the proposed ordinance, the page in the packet was completely opposite of what is being proposed tonight.He was not sure if the information should be revised and notification resent so people know what is being voted on tonight because a lot of people might have looked at the proposed ordinance page and thought it was okay but had not looked at the packet page, which is correct.