Laserfiche WebLink
RESCIIEDULED P'IEETIrIG OF '�'HE OROP70 COUrICIL, JU2d� 27, 1979 Page 7 <br /> P4assengale noved, Sutler seconded, to accept the SHADE TREE DISPOSAL* <br /> 1979 Shade Tree Disposal Plan. Piotion, Ayes (4) - (Continued) <br /> Pdays (0) . <br /> Dick Benson, City Administrator, presented the City SAC REFUND* <br /> Council with a r.�emo from Alan Olson, City Planner, 3580 Plorth Shore DrivE <br /> concerning a �AC refund, dated June 21, 1979, <br /> which states: <br /> The I�oward t•7hite, hou�e, 3580 Piorth S:�ore_ '�rive, <br /> is a small cabin which was supposed to be connected <br /> to the 63-1 sewer project in the 1960 ' s. There <br /> was no connection perriit on file. Connection <br /> notices were sent several tines over the years. <br /> The building has changed hands several times in <br /> recent years ,the last two or three owners ���ere <br /> under the impression that there was no connection. <br /> After receipt of the current connection notices, <br /> the �9hites did pay the SAC and hire a contractor <br /> who obtained a connection perriit. T�Then work began <br /> on the property, septic tanks were uncovered. <br /> Tracing this line, the contractor discovered <br /> a sewer connection had been made in the past. <br /> Staff recor.unends approval of the ��Thite' s request <br /> for a $425 SAC refund as this charge is required <br /> only for "new" connections. <br /> Staf� recommends aq�inst refund of the $20. 50 <br /> perr.►it fee as said permit No. 5562 is the only <br /> perr;lit ever issued for this address, work was <br /> done on the property, and staff tir_1e was <br /> expended for office �•�ork and inspections. <br /> Staff recomr►ends against the $240 claim for <br /> contractor' s expenses. Staff routinely dye <br /> tests property when the owners believe a <br /> connection to be existing. This was not the - <br /> case. The City (and the owners) were unaware <br /> of the previous connection_ '�'he current owners <br /> would not have had this expense if previous <br /> o�aners had obtained proper connection perriits. <br /> Two different parties were advised by the City <br /> in 1976 to perforr► the connection. This should <br /> have been done, or verified, before the �dhites <br /> purchased the property. �'hese notices were and <br /> are of public record and would have been rlade <br /> available to the 4�hites had they checked before <br /> tlie purchase. <br /> (Continued) <br />