2.0.5. SR 08-25-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

UTILITY CONNECTIONS (Item 2.2.) Please see the attached memos from Terry Maurer and Bryan Adams on this topic. In the past, there have been only a few cases where property owners have not complied with the city ordinance to connect to utilities when they become available. However, as we install utilities into more existing subdivisions that have private wells and septic systems, this connection requirement is becoming more and more of an issue. In fact, we are starting to get complaints from residents that have connected regarding neighbors that have not connected. This is an issue that needs to be discussed as there ',viii be more of these types of improvement projects taking place in the future. One of the options for the city is to "force" the connection. Based on past history it is unlikely that the city will take it upon itself to use these police like powers and have a contractor go into a home or on private property and complete the improvements. (Any expenses incurred for this type of work could be assessed to the property owner). What does seem likely and appropriate is for the city to charge these homeowners some expenses if they have not complied with the city ordinance. These expenses could be SAC and WAC and a minimum monthly utility usage bill. If these bills are not paid, it would be legal for the city to assess these expenses against the property. This is no different than what the city does with unpaid garbage bills. An amendment would be needed to our city ordinance for the city to follow this approach for the sewer system. The city is in a slightly difficult situation from the Utilities with this connection issue. This is due to the fact that often times when homes are sold there are demands placed on the homeowner (by the real estate industry or MPCA) that requires the hook-up to the municipal sexver system. A comment in the memo from Bryan Adams is very much on target in that it is a challenge to keep track of the properties that have not hooked up so that appropriate charges can be made when the actual hook up does takes place. Again, this challenge of keeping track of non-hook ups will grow as the number of improvement projects in these areas increase. It is appropriate that we get some feedback from the Council and the Commission on how to proceed with this issue and also to get some advice from our attorney, either Chris Johnson and/or Peter Beck, on the legality of some of the options that were discussed at the August 10, 2004 Utilities Commission meeting. These options are identified in the memo from Bryan Adams. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Item 2.3.) Please see the attached memos from Bryan Adams and Catherine Mehelich. In the past, the city has made special SAC and WAC arrangements for some business owners that completed renovation projects in the downtown. In reviewing the financial analysis for the current downto~vn redevelopment project it has become apparent that SAC and WAC charges are substantial and may be a stumbling block to getting any project completed. The city is a partner in this downtown redevelopment project by way of the HRA doing a request for proposal for projects and selecting MetroPlains as the developer and by way of our involvement with downtown parking. With this project, city staff has indicated that the city would consider some type of different arrangement for SAC and WAC if necessary. Since state loans and grants, land acquisition, TIF, developer profit, etc. are all involved in this project it is uncertain at this time if a delay in payment