Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-03-01 Public Serv Committee MinutesMINUTES Dublin City Council PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE Monday, December 3, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. Attending: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, Chair Mr. Ciarochi Mrs. Boring Ms. Clarke Mr. McCash Mr. Kindra Ms. Grigsby Mr. Price Ms. Readler Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher called the meeting to order. She stated that the item on the agenda for discussion is the referral from City Council to review options for payment of related water and sewer tap -in fees for Dublin Manor Subdivision, Hanna Hills Drive, MacBeth Drive, MacDuff Place, and MacDuff Way and Dan Sherri Drive. The Committee is requested to formulate a recommendation with the intent that a resolution to this issue be made at the December 101' Council meeting. She requested that Ms. Grigsby provide background information on the issue Ms. Grigsby stated user fees and capacity charges (tap -in fees) were increased in 1992. Prior to July 1, 1992, the date the first user fee and capacity charge increase went into effect, the user fee for water was $1.50 per thousand cubic feet of water consumed, there was no sewer user fee collected, and the capacity charges were $176 for a3/4" tap for water and $100 for sewer. Both water and sewer systems had been primarily built and financed by developers and the users of the systems through special assessments. Of the water system valued at $25,214,664: developers/users/special assessments financed 68.88%, income tax revenues financed 29.9%, and property tax revenues financed 1.93%. Of the sewer system valued at $46,809,614: developers/users/special assessments financed 89.55%, income tax revenues financed 9.33%, and property tax revenues financed 1.12%. The maintenance of both systems has been paid from the Water and Sewer Funds. Those revenues are provided by the users of the system. The only exception to this was in the early `90's when there was an I/I (inflow and infiltration) problem that resulted in a "connection ban." During that time, approximately $1,550,000 was transferred from the General Fund to the Sewer Fund to address the problem. Of the total $11,723,505 of infrastructure funded in the water and sewer systems by income tax revenues, about fifty percent of that was constructed between 1988 and 1990. When the City began putting together its first five-year CIP in 1991, it was apparent that not only those improvements were necessary, but significant other infrastructure improvements would be necessary in the years to come, i.e., water towers, booster stations and the biggest improvement, the construction of the Upper Scioto West Branch Interceptor for the sewer system. In order to be able to perform the other capital projects that the City had identified at that time, such as construction of the Justice Center, the Recreation Center, and all the roadway projects, the City realized that it needed to evaluate the rate structure and increase the revenues in those two systems so that they could be self-supporting. They are identified as enterprise funds — self- supporting for both the operating and the capital side. Public Services Committee Minutes of 12-3-01 Page 2 The City worked with Coopers & Lybrand to establish fees that would greatly reduce or eliminate the City's reliance upon income tax revenue for those operations, including future capital costs. The increases were implemented over a four and one-half year period, with the last increase effective January 6, 1996. Those fees, which are still in place today, are: Water: capacity charge - $1,500.00; user fee - $4.55 per thousand cubic feet, and Sewer: capacity charge - $1,600.00; $8.35 per thousand cubic feet. Since the increase in rate structure, both systems have been self-supporting, with the exception of indirect costs, such as payroll and human resources. When the new fees were adopted, one of the concerns expressed was the fact that there were areas of the City that did not have water and sewer and that when those services were made available to them in the future, they would have to pay a higher tap fee. As a result, Resolution 33-92 was adopted which stated that it was City Council's intent to provide certain existing residential properties and/or residents the opportunity to request water and sewer service at a reduced tap charge. There has been some debate as to whom that applies today, the period of time, and the assumption as to who would install the line. Staff believes that at that time, the assumption was that the water and/or sewer lines would be installed by the developer or the property owner through assessments, not by the City. Prior to 1992, whenever water and/or sewer lines were extended, special assessments were levied to the benefiting property owners. In 1991-92, the Water and Sewer Funds did not have sufficient resources to install needed lines. Ms. Grigsby added that, currently, the Water and Sewer Funds are in good shape. The Water Fund has an unencumbered balance of $9 million and the Sewer Fund has an unencumbered balance of $11.4 million. The goal is to build up the reserves to pay for the future infrastructure. For instance, the City has 18 more years to pay on the debt for the Upper Scioto West Branch Interceptor, which is paid 100 percent from the Sewer Fund. In looking at the options available to the City at this time, staff has identified five options: 1. Option 1: Allow the property owners to pay the water and sewer capacity charges that were in effect prior to July 1, 1992, which would be $176 for water and $100 for sewer. If the City were to adopt that option, the amount of fees that would be waived would be approximately $355, 824. 2. Option 2: Allow the property owners to pay a reduced fee for capacity charges. This could be an arbitrary reduction or based on the percentage that each system has been financed by income tax and/or property tax. She noted that Resolution 33-92 did reference existing residential properties and/or residents. Several current property owners in these areas were not residents when the Resolution was adopted. 3. Option 3: Allow the current capacity charges to be assessed on the property and collected through the property tax bills over a period of time. This would allow the property owners the ability to pay for the Dublin's capacity charge over a period of 3-5 years. 4. Option 4. Allow the current capacity charges to be assessed on the property based on financial hardship. Eligibility could be determined by the Income Guidelines for Franklin County Housing Program or other criteria -2- Public Services Committee Minutes of 12-3-01 Page 3 5. Option 5: Require the property owners to pay the current capacity charge when the permit to tap -in is issued. This is the City's current policy. She noted that it would be important to look at the other areas within the City that currently do not have access to water and sewer and the potential impact that Council's decision would have on future similar issues. Currently, the City Engineer has identified that providing water to those areas that do not have City water would cost approximately $6.8 million. To provide sewer service to those areas would be approximately $13.5 million. Although in this case, the City installed the water and sewer lines at no cost to the benefiting property owners, the City does recognize that the cost to pay for the taps and to install the service lines is a significant cost and could create financial hardship for some property owners. Staff believes that a good compromise would be Option 3, which would allow the current capacity charges to be collected over a 3-5 year period on the property taxes. She pointed out that one of the issues to be addressed with Option 3 is whether the City would collect interest on the total tap fee. Mrs. Boring inquired if there is any part of the lines that have been run that could be charged back to future development in any of these areas. Ms. Grigsby responded that, from an Engineering standpoint, it would have to be determined which additional areas the lines would service. She is not sure if they would service any other areas, or if based upon how they were extended, they would only provide service to the immediate areas. Mr. Kindra responded that when the project originated, there was one area with the potential of a developer participating. However, because of the timing issue, the City could not wait for the development. The line is now there and the developer/property owner has the right to connect to it. It is a legal question as to whether the City can go back and assess the developer who owns that property. Mrs. Boring stated that the discussion that occurred recently regarding running the water and sewer lines to the new high school involved the potential of charging back part of that cost to the developer of the nearby housing development. Ms. Grigsby responded that was the discussion. She is unsure if that situation is the same as exists in these areas. There, where the line currently ends, there is a significant area of undeveloped land between the high school site and the current development. Since the developer would eventually develop the land and have to pay to extend the lines through that area, there is a reasonable argument for asking for his contribution to the project. On that basis, the City looked at setting up a reimbursement district for the developer based upon the frontage and the length of waterline installed. Mrs. Boring inquired if anything similar could be applied to this area. -3- Public Services Committee Minutes of 12-3-01 Page 4 Ms. Grigsby responded that it would have to be determined if the lines provide access to an additional undeveloped area, or if they provide access only to the existing property owners. She is unaware of any such areas at this time. CITIZEN COMMENTS: Frank Todaro, 7325 MacBeth Drive, stated that at the last Council meeting he expressed the following concerns: (1) the 90 -day window to connect to the new water and sewer lines. With the average fee of a contractor to construct the connection at $5,000-$10,000.00, depending on the house, that is a large sum of money for many of the property owners; (2) what consideration could be given to Resolution 33-92 for these property owners? He noted that since that Council meeting, he obtained a Dublin tap -in permit at no charge from the Development Department and, after paying the required fee, also obtained a tap -in permit from Columbus. However, one of his neighbors attempted to obtain a Dublin tap -in a few days later. Evidently, his contact was with a different City employee who was unaware of the current stay on the Dublin tap fees, and he was required to pay the fee. He asked that the City fully communicate the recent change in the policy, as it is not being applied consistently at this point. He stated that his understanding of the basis for extending the waterline into his neighborhood was due to the health and safety issues. There were contaminated wells and a septic system runs into a sewer, which ultimately runs into the river. Since he moved into the area in 1989, they have been asking for the waterline to be extended. They hoped that the Schottenstein development would facilitate that, but the project never materialized. Finally, due to the great health concerns, the City installed the waterlines, for which he is grateful. He asked that the City make a fair decision regarding the fees, and he encouraged that as much flexibility be given as possible in the timeframe established. He would oppose any interest being charged. If the opportunity had existed to connect before now, they would have done so. He thanked Council for temporarily suspending the fees and for considering revision of the fee and timeline. Adam Thomas, 4386 Bellaire Avenue stated that the sewer line being discussed does not exist in his area. The waterline which was recently constructed caused the street to be redone. Are there plans to extend the sewer line also? If so, wouldn't it have been wise to extend both lines simultaneously to avoid the inconvenience and expense of tearing up the streets twice? Ms. Grigsby inquired if this was the southern end of Bellaire Avenue. A resident clarified that it was the east -west portion of Bellaire Avenue and the north end of Bellaire Avenue running to Dublin Road and connecting with Brandonway. Another resident noted that sewers are not available on Limerick Lane and Bellaire Ct. Ms. Grigsby responded that currently, the extension of the sewer line is not planned for those areas. The areas were the sewer line was installed this fall was MacBeth, MacDuff, and Hanna Hills Drive. -4- Public Services Committee Minutes of 12-3-01 Page 5 Chris Brown, 4428 Limerick Lane, thanked Council for the steps already taken to address this issue. He believes that once clarifications are made, the property owners will be able to proceed. The letter they received from the City was lengthy, but it did not clarify issues. For instance, are there indeed only 90 days to complete the connections? What do the fees entail? Will they be deferred and included in the property taxes over a period of time? Also, since his neighborhood does not have the sewer line, he assumes they will not be billed for that. Donald Mogan, 7450 Bellaire Avenue, stated that his understanding was that if they kept their wells, they would be required to pay annually an $80.00 inspection fee. If the plumbing is entirely separate so there is no way the two sources could be connected, why is such a fee and inspection necessary on an annual basis? Ms. Grigsby stated that it is not a Dublin inspection. She believes it is a Board of Health inspection. Mr. McCash responded that it is a City of Columbus inspection to ensure that the systems aren't cross -connected and that there is an appropriate backflow prevention device. Mike Close, 7360 Bellaire Avenue, thanked City Council for its fair treatment and commended Jay Herskowitz and the City work crews for an outstanding job. Also, the residents are aware that Council must be careful in setting a precedent for the next $14 - $19 million that will be involved in servicing the remaining areas of the City. However, he has three concerns: 1. As a matter of principle, is it correct to charge him a right-of-way fee? He owns his front yard to the center of the street. He gave the City a right-of-way to build the road and put in utilities. He is offended that, in return, the City requires him to pay $140 to tear up his own land to hook up this tap. 2. The issue of the sizing of the tap. In his situation, he will have to run a line 550 feet to his house; a three-quarters inch tap would not give him sufficient water pressure to take a shower. The engineering isn't completed with the sizing, but he will either need a one inch, an inch and a quarter, or inch and a half tap. Many of these lots are oversized, so others will have similar problems. A three-quarters inch tap is $1,500.00, but a one and a half inch tap is $4,000. Now that only he and his wife live in the house and their usage is much less, he will be charged as if he were running a small hotel. At least on the Dublin side, the fee ought to be based on capacity of usage. 3. Resolution 33-92 was passed because it was anticipated that the development on the east side would bring the water there, and the infrastructure fees would be paid by the developer. Since it didn't happen, this area is now in the same situation as all the other areas without lines. He asked that all be treated the same. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked that Mr. Kindra respond to Mr. Close's inquiry about the right-of- way fee. Mr. Kindra responded that by ordinance the City requires that anyone doing work within the City right-of-way pay the $140 fee. It is not an unusual situation in the older portion of the City for a property owner to own the land to the center of the road; however, the road is not maintained by - 5 - Public Services Committee Minutes of 12-3-01 Page 6 the property owner, but by the City. There is usually only an easement for the road width. Any time the City does work beyond that, it has to obtain an additional easement for the work. Typically, when the City begins to acquire additional easements, it would then acquire an easement to the centerline of the road. Mr. McCash inquired if legally this is actually a right-of-way or an easement, and does the ordinance apply in that situation. Mr. Readler responded that they have discussed this issue. The City has done a couple of different things with the properties. It would be necessary to look at the legal documents for the individual properties to determine which it is, if the City wants to charge based upon what goes over the land. Much of the language, even in the easement documents, provides that if the property owner has work performed in the City's easement for any reason, the City can charge inspection fees to ensure that the property is returned to its original state. Mr. Close responded that he would not mind if he were tearing up the road, but he is tearing up his front yard only. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher addressed the issue of the fee differential between the 3/4" tap versus something larger. Wouldn't the theory have been that the larger tap would have been required for a commercial user, not a residence, and that is the reason the fee is so much greater? Mr. Kindra stated that the theory behind the different sizes is that more water is consumed by the larger lines and pressure on the main line is lost by providing a bigger connection. The difference is not in the amount of usage. A long run loses pressure. Therefore more water must flow through the pipe to create the pressure; that can happen only with a larger pipe. Ms. Grigsby stated that although they are called tap fees, they're actually capacity charges. Part of the system in determining when towers and booster stations are needed is based upon the amount of capacity that's been issued against the system. A3/4" tap issues less capacity against the system than a 1" tap. Mr. McCash stated that if a resident who installs a 4" line to his house uses only the amount of water that a typical home would use from a3/4" line, it doesn't make sense to charge him for a 4" tap. Ms. Grigsby stated that it is not based on the amount consumed, but on the amount of pressure. The tap is based on capacity. The user fees, on the other hand, are based on consumption. Discussion continued regarding size of line versus pressure. Mr. McCash stated that he does not know how many homes are in a similar situation wherein they will be unable to obtain the necessary pressure from a3/4" line, however, the amount of water they would use would be consistent with a single-family home. He suggested that the difference be waived provided that the property remains used by a single-family home. -6- Public Services Committee Minutes of 12-3-01 Page 7 Mr. Thomas stated that he lives at the end of Manor Ct. There is not a loop system there, but the "T" system, or a dead-end system. Because of that, he requires more pressure. Mr. Kindra confirmed that because of where his house is located, he could be off the loop system and on a dead-end system. Mr. McCash inquired if static and residual pressure have been measured on these lines. Mr. Kindra responded that they are not really set up to do that, although, if necessary, it could be done. Bill Bownas, 7365 Bellaire Avenue, inquired how the homeowners could know what size taps they need. If it is an issue that must be discussed with a contractor, how can they know what size permit to apply for? Mr. Kindra stated that all single-family homes are typically provided a3/4" tap. What Mr. Close is describing is not a typical subdivision home. Mr. Bownas stated that he is concerned that he and his neighbors would all apply for the typical 3/a" tap, pay a contractor to install a3/4" line, put in a pressure reducer at the home, and then discover they don't have enough pressure to meet their needs. Would they then incur the expense of undoing everything and starting over? It would be desirable to avoid that situation. Mr. McCash stated that is the reason he suggested doing the pressure tests now, since the waterlines are in —to know what the pressure is within the lines. He inquired if the City would permit the line to be increased to a larger size after the 3/a" tap. Mr. Kindra responded that typically the City does not run into this situation. This is an older area with very large lots. They would be glad to consult with the property owners to determine what is more advisable for them. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it appears that the additional evaluation will be necessary since this is not the typical residential neighborhood. The homes along the river are set back substantially. What could they expect from Engineering at this point? Mr. Kindra stated that they will be available, on inquiry, to evaluate the property for the appropriate size line. It will take substantial work to make these calculations, which must be based on the length of the line to be run, including the number of bends and turns in the line before it reaches the tap. At this point, the City has no way of knowing the where the tap is going and how long the run is. [Mr. Kindra provided the Engineering phone number.] Mr. Bownas stated that they would advise the 50 property owners on Bellaire Avenue that they would be wise to contact Mr. Kindra for that evaluation. -7- Public Services Committee Minutes of 12-3-01 Page 8 Mr. McCash inquired how soon Engineering would be ready to test the water lines for pressure. Mr. Kindra estimated approximately ten days. The water lines are already in. Mr. McCash stated that if it is possible, explore the possibility of keeping the 3/a" tap, but after the tap and meter, increase the line to a larger size to accommodate the friction losses. For the homeowner, this would also avoid the necessity of their paying a larger fee to the City of Columbus. Mr. Kindra stated that they will look at both options and determine what would be necessary for the particular homeowner. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired what length of time would be feasible in which to have these calculations completed. Mr. Thomas stated that there are eight homes on Manor Ct. with a T -tap line that would need this evaluation. Mr. Kindra stated that it would be necessary to go out in the field to make each determination. It could be possible to complete the calculations in one month. Mr. Bownas suggested that the property owners could facilitate this time-consuming task for the City, if they were aware of the dates that the City would be in their area They could all commit to specific blocks of time for those days and eliminate the need for the City to make unnecessary visits to complete the task. Mr. Bownas agreed to serve as the contact person to make those arrangements with the City. Jim Jedewski, 7630 Bellaire Avenue, stated that several property owners have already had the service lines installed. If the City makes some empirical measurements, his home is approximately 200 feet from the main line, his neighbor is at 250 ft, and they are both at 3/a" taps. Also, he was informed that, according to the City of Columbus, he could not have a well on his property, if City water was available. If there was a well, it must have a back-flush valve, or be capped. He added that the $80.00 annual inspection fee to do nothing is inappropriate. Is there anything Dublin can do with that? Mr. Kindra stated that it is an insurance required by the City of Columbus. Mr. Todaro stated that he was oblivious of the possible problem with a longer line, and he has a 160 ft. run with a3/4" tap. How should the homeowner proceed if it is determined the tap is too small? Mr. Kindra responded that he should have no problem with the 3/a" tap. Public Services Committee Minutes of 12-3-01 Page 9 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that the decision has been made that Mr. Kindra will work with Mr. Bownas to make arrangements for the residents in the Bellaire Avenue, Manor Ct. area for the pressure calculations to determine the size of the line needed. Mrs. Boring stated that Section 2 of Resolution 33-92 states that in 180 days legislation would be drafted to provide for such reductions. That would indicate the prospect of pre -payment, although it was not followed through. Ms. Grigsby responded that was discussed, as initially, there was the anticipation that some lines would be extended in the near future, and the City would need some mechanism in place to administer the reductions. The proposal was that the property owner would pay his tap fee up front, which would be held in an escrow account until the lines were installed. However, the lines were never extended, so no tap fees were calculated. Mrs. Boring stated that it sounds as though the Council at that time intended to provide some relief for long-time residents. Even if the City reduces the tap fee, as soon as the homeowner is on the system, the City will begin to collect user fees. Also, because of the depth of the lots in these neighborhoods, it will be expensive for them to run the long lines necessary. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that, on the other hand, the City did not anticipate paying for the cost of the main lines, and it has used a significant portion of the funds to do so. She inquired how the addition of City water and sewer would affect the value of these homes. Ms. Grigsby stated that normally the value of the home increases when it connects to the public water and sewer system. Mrs. Boring stated that can vary depending on the home itself. The cost may not be recovered on a small, older -style ranch home which must have a long waterline run, although there are other homes that could see a significant increase in value. Eileen Zelaznv, 4444 Limerick Lane, stated that her family moved into the neighborhood two years ago. They are a young, one -income family, with three small children, and, at this particular time, they find the fees prohibitive — they estimate $8,000. Can they remain with their private water supply, or would the City pass legislation requiring connection to the public water system? If the cost could be attached to their property taxes, they could pay it. However, they cannot pay that sum of money up -front. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that when the neighborhoods were polled, the majority of the homeowners indicated that they would tap in. The reason the City installed the lines and would require tap -in is due to the health and safety issue. Ms. Grigsby clarified that when the legislation was passed to award the construction contract on this project, Council directed staff to prepare legislation requiring the water tap -in. The legislation is scheduled for the December lou' Council meeting. It does provide allowances for -9- Public Services Committee Minutes of 12-3-01 Page 10 waivers based on hardship. For instance, it would allow a homeowner who has just installed a well at significant cost an extended period of time to tap in. Ms. Zelazny stated that they do not consider themselves a hardship case, but they don't have $3,500 - $8,000. When they purchased their home, they were told there would be City water, and they assumed the cost would be rolled into their taxes over a period of time. What constitutes hardship? Ms. Grigsby stated that the ordinance doesn't identify that because the intent was not to restrict, through codification, what constitutes hardship. It would be looked at on a case-by-case basis, and any hardship case approved by the City Manager must subsequently be approved by Council. However, Council is considering the option of payment through the property taxes over a period of time. Mrs. Boring stated that in the Legal Opinion on this issue, the suggestion was made that the Dublin portion of the tap fee could be reduced to the pre -1992 rate, with the property owner to complete the connection within a limited period of time, after which it would increase to the current rate. Ms. Grigsby stated that if Council were to choose Option 1, which is paying the old rates, that staff would need further direction on specific criteria, for instance, the time period for which that rate would be valid. Option 1: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that the Committee look at the criteria for Option 1, which would allow the property owners to pay the water and sewer capacity charges that were effective prior to July 1, 1992, water - $176 and sewer - $100. Both rates assume a 3/a" tap. She noted that Mrs. Boring has suggested that if Option 1 is chosen, that a time period be set in which that rate would be valid. After that time period, tap rates in that area would revert to the current rate. Mr. McCash inquired how many of these properties under discussion were developed and actually part of the City in 1992, not annexed subsequent to 1992. Ms. Grigsby stated that all of these areas were in the City as of 1992. One area, Dan Sherri, was annexed in the late `80's, either 1987 or 1988, but the areas were all in the City in 1992. Ms. Zelazny stated that the area in which she lives on Limerick remained part of Washington Township until two years ago. Mike Close agreed that the northern -most end of Bellaire was also not part of Dublin at that time; the rest of Bellaire has been in Dublin for a substantial period of time. Ms. Grigsby stated that the majority of the area has been in the City since 1992. Mr. McCash suggested that it could be stated that the properties within the City in 1992 would be eligible to pay the 1992 rate. For those properties annexing after 1992, whatever the rate was the -10- Public Services Committee Minutes of 12-3-01 Page 11 year they were annexed would be their rate for the sewer and water tap fees for this specified time period. That is the amount they would have paid to connect if the water and sewer had been available at that time. Ms. Grigsby inquired if the intent is to tie the rate to the property, versus the homeowner moving in. Mr. McCash agreed that it would be tied to the property annexation. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired how many houses would be impacted. Ms. Grigsby estimated a total of 127 homes. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher clarified "homes that came into Dublin after 1992." Mr. Close stated that the 15 homes on Bellaire was the largest section of this area to be annexed later. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about sewer fees for Dublin Manor. Isn't that the area where sewers have not been installed? Ms. Grigsby responded that there are areas of Dublin Manor that already have sewers; some do not. A resident clarified that Dublin Manor is the section of Bellaire on the north end. None of the homes on the north end have sewers. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the $87,000 takes into account the area that does not have sewers. Ms. Grigsby clarified that the $87,000 could be deducted from the amount estimated for the total fees that would be waived under Option 1. Mrs. Boring stated that would reduce the total impact to $268,000. A couple of hardship cases would also be added. This is not money that the City would be required to pay; it is money that it would not collect. Option 2: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Option 2 would allow the property owner to pay a reduced fee for capacity charges. This would be an arbitrary amount set by Council. Ms. Grigsby stated that it could be determined by how much of the system has been funded by income and property taxes. For sewer, that would be approximately 10.5%, and for water it would be approximately 31%. The fee could be reduced by those percentages. Mrs. Boring stated that she does not favor this option. - 11 - Public Services Committee Minutes of 12-3-01 Page 12 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that they would not want to create a bookkeeping nightmare. Option 3: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this option allows the current capacity charge to be placed as an assessment on the property and collected on the property tax bills over a period of time, such as 3-5 years. Mrs. Boring inquired if this would only be Dublin's portion of the tap fee. Ms. Grigsby affirmed that it was. Mr. McCash inquired if there was any way to address Columbus's portion. Would Dublin have to front the amount? Ms. Grigsby affirmed that it would; Columbus wouldn't make these type of arrangements. Option 4: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that eligibility is determined for hardship cases. There are standards already designed for this type of determination, which would eliminate most from qualifying. In the absence of using those guidelines, the City could devise its own; however, she does not favor this option. Option 5: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this leaves the policy as it is, which the Committee is here to consider changing. Mr. McCash stated that Option 1 recognizes the earlier commitment of City Council with Resolution 33-92. Option 3 raises certain questions, such as (1) The argument that the homeowners have paid in money for these systems over a number of years through taxes, without the benefit. (2) Any reduction in the fee affects only Dublin's portion. If the City waives the tap fees for a year, and the homeowner cannot come up with the larger amount to install the line, does the homeowner lose the opportunity for the reduced fee? (3) Does the City then offer relief on a case-by-case basis? Or offer low-interest loans from the City to be assessed to the property taxes? Mrs. Boring stated that she believes all cases can be taken to the City Manager for hardship consideration. The East Dublin Civic Association distributed a letter to encourage the neighborhood, stating that because this would improve the quality of life, and the City had gone ahead with the major cost of construction of the main lines, that residents could consider home equity loans as an option. She does not favor low-interest loans from the City for construction. Mr. Bownas stated that the amounts he has heard tonight were not shared during the initial discussion with residents regarding bringing public water into the neighborhood. The letter he received mentioned only a $1,500 tap charge for the City of Dublin and $1,500 tap charge from the City of Columbus, plus the subsequent water bill. He inquired if it were necessary that the complete connection be done all at once. He suggested that the resident be allowed to pay the tap fee initially, to take advantage of that rate, and then complete the connection as they are able. The total cost can be from $6,000 - $10,000. -12- Public Services Committee Minutes of 12-3-01 Page 13 Ms. Grigsby stated that suggestion is the one considered in 1992, that the payments be held in escrow until the individual taps in. Mrs. Boring stated that the funds were to be held until the lines were available, at which time the tap -in was to occur. The lines are available now. Her suggestion is to lower the rate to the pre - 1992 fees for a limited period of time as an incentive for property owners to connect as soon as possible to address the quality of life issue. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it is unusual for cities to pay the entire cost of constructing the waterlines. However, Council decided to do so to address the health issues. Consequently, it is important that the neighborhood follow through and connect as soon as possible. Mr. Close stated that at the original neighborhood forums, Mr. Kindra's office provided estimates of the costs to the homeowners, which in his case, were extremely accurate. City staff informed the residents of the costs well before the commitment was made. A citizen inquired how the amount of time allowed between paying the City of Dublin's fee and the City of Columbus's fee. Mr. Kindra responded that usually it is done immediately afterwards, however, in this case it would depend on the timeframe given by Council for completion of construction. It would be necessary to obtain the Columbus permit in time to complete the construction within Dublin's designated timeframe. Ms. Grigsby stated that she just recently received notification that the Columbus tap fees will increase in January 2002. Ms Chinnici-Zuercher moved to allow the property owners in the areas of Hanna Hills, MacBeth/MacDuff, Dublin Manor, Dan Sherri to pay the water and sewer capacity charges that were in effect prior to July 1, 1992, which would be $176 for a3/4" tap for water and $100 for 3/a" tap for sewer; to be completed within nine months, after which time the rate would increase to the current rate. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Mrs. Boring inquired when the nine months would begin. Mr. Kindra stated that residents were informed that the designated time would begin with the date of receipt of the letter informing them the lines were available. Mrs. Boring inquired how long the permit is valid to complete the construction. Is nine months the total time the City would allow to complete the connection? Mr. Price stated that there is no time limitation attached to the permit itself. The time limit is established by the City for connection. Ms. Chinnici-Zurcher inquired if Mr. Todaro considered nine months a reasonable time frame. -13- Public Services Committee Minutes of 12-3-01 Page 14 Mr. Todaro stated that he started the process a month ago. He has been informed that 40 homes are ahead of him. Soon, all his neighbors will be attempting to have their lines installed, and they will have a much longer wait. In his opinion, one year would be more reasonable. Mrs. Boring withdrew her second. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher amended her motion in order to provide a one-year timeframe. She noted that would expire at the beginning of a new fiscal year, and the City would have the advantage of knowing how many of the homes had tapped in at the old rate. Mrs. Boring inquired if this policy is also suggested for future connections, or for this area only. Mr. McCash and Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it would be for this area only. Mr. Ciarochi suggested that the motion clarify that this same opportunity applies to those who have already paid their tap fees. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher added that any amount of overpayment would be reimbursed to those property owners who have already paid the tap fee at the current rate. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the committee would make this recommendation to Council at the December 10th Council meeting. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Submitted by: Assistant Clerk of Council -14-