Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />March 4, 2004 <br />Page 10 <br />to seal the drawing. It is then a city project built on an easement that has been <br />granted to the City. In this particular instance, the drawing was done by Jim <br />Nelson and all that City Engineer Napier added to it were the standards on the <br />plan sheet. He sealed it because it had then become a city project using the <br />developer’s money. <br />City Attorney Schenk said this is part of the difficulty in this process. He <br />advised that they are not saying that the city needs this process. They are <br />saying there are pitfalls to this process. <br />City Engineer Napier said it becomes more of a hassle to have this process <br />because you have to keep up with all of the information. In this particular case, <br />one-half of the lots had water and sewer, all of the lots had water, and only <br />three lots did not have sewer. Now only one lot does not have sewer. <br />Councilman Bell wanted to know if the city gets to keep the $11,000.00. City <br />Attorney Schenk said, no. He said the way the ordinance is written is that if he <br />installs the necessary utilities, then the bond goes back to him. City Engineer <br />Napier said the city has a cashier’s check, which has been placed in the city’s <br />bank account drawing interest. He assumed that the city only has to give back <br />the portion that the city does not use. The City Engineer said the city would <br />put the taps in and charge him that amount and only credit him back what the <br />city does not use in making the sewer taps. <br />Councilman Bell felt that if there are developers out there, they need to get their <br />own plans drawn and they need to put the utilities in. If the city starts to put <br />those in, the city needs to put them in at cost plus like anyone else would <br />normally do. He said there is no reason for the city installing this. <br />Councilwoman Neeley stated that if the city does what Councilman Bell said <br />originally, then this ordinance would need to be repealed. <br />City Attorney Schenk advised that only that section would need to be repealed. <br />He explained that this section actually covers two issues. The ability to post <br /> <br />