CC_Minutes_2024_0318 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 18,2024 Page 3 Mr. Roger Hess,Jr., Wagener Place Mr. Hess indicated he was always interested in finding out how City fees are determined. He thought it was interesting that the new fee is exactly the same as what the previous deposit was. He wondered if, with the new fee, are the people buying the meter because he assumed it cost$340. He also wondered with the new fee, are the property owners purchasing the meters with them owning the meters or are there some other expenses that just happen to add up to $340. He found out last week that the City has not been holding onto the deposit money; it has been spent. He thought it would have been put into a fund with interest added onto it but the City does not have the money to give back. He suggested the City start using the Cash Reserve Fund to pay people back their meter deposits. Mr. Freihammer explained the meter deposit and the new proposed meter fee is based on the size of the meter and what the City's current cost is and it covers just the cost of the meter. Mayor Roe assumed from a legal point of view, simply because the homeowner or business owner is paying the City for the cost of the meter, it does not mean they are establishing any kind of ownership interest in the meter; it is still the City's meter. Mr. Freihammer indicated that was correct. The City Code makes that very clear. Mayor Roe thought that if a deposit once was made when the home was purchased, the deposit was returned when the home was sold. The next purchaser would pay the deposit at that point. He noted what the City found over time was that really is not necessary to the original purpose and intent of having the deposits. This fee would only affect new meters and new installations. Mr. Freihammer indicated that was correct. Mayor Roe explained regarding the City spending all of the deposit money, in reality, the City has the obligation as a deferred liability on the books of the City, that is what a deposit really is. So, it may mean that those funds are fluid, like a bank account, with all of the transactions. But, basically, the City still does have that obligation and needs to pay back to the people that paid the deposit. That obligation is still there while the funds may be moving around as a part of the business of the City. Strahan moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1671 entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Title 8, Section 801.10 of the Roseville City Code to Eliminate the Requirement for a Water Meter Security Deposit and Add the Requirement for a Water Meter Fee"