Laserfiche WebLink
Sewer Ar.sessment Policy - Navarre <br />August 23, 1�95 <br />Page 3 <br />d) That had these existing buildings done the projects in 1983 or <br />earlier they would probably not have paid these charges since they <br />already had been assessed the $225 and °' 7,0 at that time they happened <br />and not paid the $985. <br />e) Had no new development come in, some system correction would have <br />to be done and either paid for out of sewer utility charges or <br />assessed against existing property owners. <br />f) At present about 10-15% of the future connection charges r Lift <br />Station #7 have been paid. <br />RECONREMATI•;: <br />At present, there are zz least four different s� t i r ••ssible in <br />the district which are charged the same under the prey •)o <br />- Existing buildings/new use increasing sewage <br />- New buildings replacing existing buildings <br />^w residential with stubs <br />w residential without stubs <br />For the p stnt is. a regarding these specific charges, the following <br />.ems are recom.;ended as an amended policy in Lift Station #6, #7, #8, 113 <br />and #22 Prea: <br />a) That all new residential lots developed that currently do not have <br />a stub be cha_.-ed the entire $1,345 plus $113.50 (10% of the Lift <br />Station #71s $�,35 and $1 `"0 for the by-pass) fo. each year after 1984 <br />that they hook up to pay for the City's "carrvi n,r costs". <br />b) That new residential uw,- is with stubs c, charged $985 -lus $98.50 <br />per year. <br />c) That <br />new bu <br />'ings replacing existing ones with <br />n:) inc.--ease in <br />usage not <br />be ;ed . <br />d) That <br />existing <br />buildings with increaF d usage he c <br />-d 5335 per <br />increase <br />unit plus <br />$33.50 per year after 1984. If th <br />.sting capa- <br />city were <br />used up <br />strictly by existing commercial `:ic <br />Duld pay off <br />the assessments. <br />e) To the extent that f.,tu.-e units do not come on line, it is recom- <br />mended that the monie. tc t-cen f- maintenance funds, as *he project <br />would nave most probably have ' e done, and so paid. (This project <br />was not bondf-d but borrowed funds from the PIR fund.) <br />Should you adopt these rccommendat ions `hey will he brought back in <br />iesolution form on F-�ptember 9th, 1985. <br />i for rather r-commended ac•ti,_ns: <br />a, That a comprehensive impr ,vement E..)licy be deveiped and adopted to <br />911ide fut.ire assessmen . poli_ies. <br />