01-09-1989 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) P'^funds January 3, 1989 Page 4 of 4 6. Pull disclosure requirement. - It is our opinion that if a refund program is undertaken, the City would potentially assume some liability for future SAC charges for properties that receive a refund. It is conceivable that a current or future property owner in 10 or 20 could come back and make the case that he was unaware that he would have to pay a future inflated SAC charge and the City should pay the difference. Because of such a potential liability, staff is recommending that if a program is adopted, a document be signed by the property owner indicating that he is aware of the future ramifications for his property that are spelled out in that document, and that such document will be filed in the chain of title of the property. Alternatives for Council Consideration - 1. 2. OR OR 3. 4. Develop a program majcing all currently unsewered properties eligible for a refund. Adopt a partial program to include only specific areas of the City, for instance: A) just Big Island; B) just the 5-acre zone and Big Island; C) the 5-acre zone. Big Island, and the 2-acre zone excluding the Stubb ’s Bay; D) the 5-acre zone. Big Island, the 2-acre zone excluding Stubb's Bay and excluding the 5 other areas delinlated on the map (Exhibit D) indicating future potential sewered areas. Choose to not undertake the prograun. Table discussion for further study. Recommendation - Having discussed the potential consequences of such a program.at length, John, Tom, Jeanne and I agree that undertaking a SAC refund program has inherent administrative problems and costs and may have potential political ramifications, while providing a relatively minor short-term benefit to the affected property owners. It is therefore recommended that a SAC Refund Program not be adopted. However, if Council does wish to opt for a partial program, we would recommend that such a program be adopted only for Big Island.