Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 17, 1996 MinutesMeridian City Council September 17, 1996 Page 32 further discussion? All those in favo~ Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Entertain a motion for an ordinance. Morrow: So moved Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to have the attomey draw up the ordinance, all those in favor?. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: SEWER AND WATER CONNECTION FEES AND USE FEES: Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite anybody from the public that would like to testify on the sewer and water connection fees and use fees. Seeing none, Council discussion? Hearing none I will close the public hearing. I guess we have two ordinances. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt Ordinance #742 with the suspension of the rules. Bentley: Second Corrie: I guess I need to read it first and which version do you want? ORDINANCE #742, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN REPEALING SECTION 7-533A, SECTION 7-533B AND SECTION 7-535 OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN RE-ENACTING SAID SECTIONS OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Morrow I will entertain that motion now. Which one do you want to approve, A or B, A has the second paragraph in there for (inaudible) and B does not have that section. A is for any purposes has the second paragraph under 7-535 (inaudible) existing public sewer adjacent to their property and No. 742 B does not have that paragraph. If I am correct Mr. Counselor those are exactly the same except for that. Crookston: That is correct. Morrow: I guess for my purposes what are the pluses and minuses of having it in and out. Meridian City Council September 17, 1996 Page 33 Why do we have two versions here? Smith: I believe as I recall that the version A is how the existing ordinance reads. There is a provision that adjacent properties are to be assessed the connection fee that is in the ordinance if they have not participated in construction of the sewer line. So, the A version would be as the ordinance exists. The B version would be a deletion of that provision from the existing ordinance. Morrow: I understand that the question is why would we be deleting that portion? Smith: Why would it be deleted, I don't know. I think that it should be left as it exists in the ordinance, I don't know why it was Morrow: What I am trying to find out here is why do we have two versions of the ordinance. Smith: I don't know Councilman. Crookston: It has been a while since I drafted this ordinance but as I recall the section that has the additional provision in it excuse me the additional paragraph on Section 7-535 I think that Mr. Freckleton discussed this and we desired to take that out because it is in the ordinance now as I am recalling. Smith: Yes it is. Bentley: Why would we want to take it out? Smith: Mayor and Council, perhaps it has to do with the latecomers agreements that we have that we draft on these extensions of sewer lines. Crookston: That is correct. Smith: Maybe that is what the thinking was. Morrow: So let me ask you this, how does that impact this proposed ordinance or this paragraph. I am trying to get to what the linkage is here as between the two as the reason why we shouldn't have it in the ordinance. Smith: I don't know that I am prepared to answer that. I wasn't aware that it was being removed. I really don't know why it was there originally, it has been in the ordinance as long as I have been around here and I don't know why it has been there, why it was placed there. Meridian City Council September 17, 1996 Page 34 Morrow: Okay let's work, let me maybe read this thing and see if we can work our way through so we can determine whether it needs to be there or not be there. It says for properties that have an existing public sewer adjacent to their property without direct cost to the present owner or former owners of the property there shall be a additional connection charge of $1580 for each equivalent connection or fraction thereof as may be assigned to the property by the City. Does that mean that you have two lots side by side and that LotA has extended the sewer line to his property and through his property to the property line. That Lot owner B cannot connect to the end of that line without paying extra fees because he has not extended the line across the full frontage of his lot is that what that is trying to say? Smith: The way I read it Councilman Morrow, is if you have two properties A and B side by side and A develops and in the process of developing extends the sewer across the front adjacent to the frontage of Lot B and then B develops B would then pay the standard connection fee plus an additional connection fee same amount as specified in this paragraph. So that Lot B would pay $3160 for the privilege for connecting to a sewer line that was constructed by others. Morrow: But in your example did you not say that Lot owner B also extended the sewer line across the front of his property or you said he hooked on to where Lot A left it. Smith: Lot A extended the sewer line to their lot and in doing so built the sewer in front along the frontage of Lot B which gave Lot B access to the sewer. Morrow: So you are saying that Lot B is actually closer to the original sewer than A was and Lot A extended it all the way through. Smith: Yes correct Morrow: In our current late comers agreement really what it amounts to is Lot B is supposed to pay the cost of the extension of the sewer service from point of pick up to Lot A is that correct? Smith: Well under late comers agreements Lot would have to pay their proportional share of the construction of that extension. Morrow: Which may be more or less than what this is indicating. Smith: Right and I assume that was the thinking that Bruce Freckleton and Wayne had when they deleted that paragraph that any additional cost to a property no involved in the Meridian City Council September 17, 1996 Page 35 extension of a sewer line would be recovered through a late comers agreement which is now a typical process. I don't think that the late comers agreement was in the ordinance at the time that this paragraph was in the ordinance. I think the late comers agreement came along at a later date. This paragraph was not removed from the ordinance when the late comers provision was added to the ordinance. Crookston: That is correct. (Inaudible) recalling what Bruce Freckleton and I did discuss was that because of the late comers agreements that we are doing now that there was no need for this paragraph in the ordinance. Smith: I would agree with that. Morrow: And I also would from the standpoint that is makes sense (inaudible) arbitrary number that may or may not be relevant to the actual cost. So I would Rountree: Mr. Mayor, just one point to that as soon as we delete it from the ordinance there will be one of those situations that you rusty minds that wasn't subject to late comers fee that this might be applicable to. We are receiving numerous requests in and about the City where we are asking for hook ups that probably should have been done years ago. Smith: I agree Rountree: And there is no way to assess a late comers fee to them. Smith: Right, a lot of those extensions that were done years ago were constructed with a consortium of funds. Typically federal, state maybe some local money and the recovery of those funds at this point I think the more important thing would be to fairly assess the property that is connecting to the sewer for the use of the waste water plant, the capacity from the waste water plant. Rather than the cost of the line that may have been constructed with public matching funds. Not necessarily a private developer expenditure. Morrow: So your thought is, if I am understanding you that you leave that in the ordinance. Smith: Well I don't think so, I think it would be, it is an arbitrary number as it exists or as it is proposed and what are we trying to recover from the person connecting to the line. It is a cost that occurred years ago and I don't know how much of the funds were local funds, how much were state, how much were federal. My inclination is to pay or have the person connecting to the sewer pay for the cost of treating their waste at the waste water treatment plant. And the cost of.the line is there, it has been years and years in the ground siting some of these places that are adjacent to an older sewer line. Morrow: And to take that one step further then by, if it is a single family residence that is one hook up fee, if it is some sort of small commercial usage then it is assigned based on Meridian City Council September 17, 1996 Page 36 equivalency and so on and so forth so that self adjusts. Smith: Right. Rountree: With Gary's answer I would be not willing but see reason to take it out. Morrow: So we would go with #742 B. I will withdraw the motion and then make the motion for the correct ordinance. Corrie: Second withdraw. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we adopt Ordinance #742 B with the suspension of the rules. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made that we accept Ordinance #742 with the suspension of rules, which is the one deleting that second paragraph under 7-535, any further discussion? Roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley - Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: Let me ask this before you read ordinance #743, is there an A and B to this? Corrie: I don't think so. Ordinance #743, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN REPEALING SECTION 5-119B, SECTION 5-131 OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, RE-ENACTING SAID SECTION 5-119B, SECTION 5-131 OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance #743 read in its entirety? Hearing none Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move that the City of Meridian adopt Ordinance #743 with the suspension of rules. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by. Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree that Ordinance #743 be approved with the suspension of rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley - Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea