08-26-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 12,1996 (•#9) PAY REQUEST #l KELLY AVENUE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT Callahan moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Pay Request #I for the Kelly Avenue Sanitary Sewer Improvement in the amount of $22,717.83 to Widmer, Inc V^ote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#I0) PAY REQUEST #1 AND FINAL 1996 SEAL COAT PROJECT Callahan moved. Kelley seconded, to approve Pay Request #l and Final Request for Payment for the 1996 Seal Coat Project in the amount of $34,401.26 to Alli^ Blacktop. Vote: Ayes 4. Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#11) APPEAL OF LOCAL SAC AND WAC CHARGES FOR $340 SHORELINE DRIVE Moorse reported that an amendment to the fee schedule ordinance was approved in April of 1996. Local SAC and WAC charges are to be collected when non-residential properties are changed to more intense usage. The fee amount is $900 per unit basis for additional sewer flows and $900 per unit for additional water usage. This is a one time charge collected at the time the building permit is issued. The first case Is now before the Council as a resuh of the redevelopment project by John O'Sullivan at 3340 Shoreline Drive The projected increase in usage is dramatic due to the addition of a car wash resulting in a signiflcant charge due at this time. O'Sullivan was surprised when he was apprised of the fee and is requesting an appeal of the charge. Staff did issue the building permit with the understanding of the appeal being brought before the Council for consideration. O'Sullivan informed the Council that his application was first brought forward in January of 1996 and approved in March of 1996. The amendment was approved at the April 22 Council meeting At the time of finalizing paperwork for his mortgage closing, O'Sullivan was informed of the fee. He was not expecting said charge. O'Sullivan asked that the Council consider his appeal because the approval of his development was made prior to the approval of the fee amendment. He also questioned why the City did not inform him of the charge before the time of issuing the building permit. O'Sullivan also said he was informed that the : amounts came from a study of comparable neighboring cities and challenged whether the cities shown in the study were actually comparable as they are not part of the metropolitan waste system. O'Sullivan presented to the Council information he gathered from other neighboring cities which he felt were more comparable and found rates from $0 to $ 10,500. Some examples were PI>mouth at $1,000 and Spring Lake Park at a total including SAC, WAC. and building permit at $17,452.