Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETING <br />OCTOBER 23, 2000 <br />Mr. Lyle Snyder, 1940 Huey Street, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he has some concerns about <br />this bill because he has a copy of a Resolution from 1974. The Resolution indicates that they were <br />left out of improvements at that time. He questioned the fact that if they do riot hook up immediately <br />they will be charged seven dollars and ninety cents ($7.90) per month for something they are not <br />using. Further, Mr. Snyder noted that they do not have any sewers on Huey Street from Hamilton <br />to Bergan and that the water line that goes to the 2000 block of Hamilton was installed in the 1990's. <br />He noted that these are the reasons he is opposed to this bill. <br />Ms. Rosie Cottonham, 2003 North Huey, South Bend, Indiana, informed the Council that someone <br />came to her door a month ago and told her that sewer and water lines were going to be installed and <br />they would not be charged. She stated that she has now received a letter indicating that she would <br />be charged three thousand dollars ($3,000.0) and she does not understand why. <br />In rebuttal, Mr. Magliozzi stated that in December of 1999 letters were sent to all property owners <br />explaining the plan to extend water and sewer to this area. The letter indicated that there would be <br />a charge and it contained a chart indicating the charge for those wishing to hook up to sewer and <br />water. The letter further indicated that there would be no immediate requirement to hook up to these <br />services because they recognize that there are a number of wells and septic systenns that may still <br />have a useful life. Also, the letter stated that there would be a payment plan available and the <br />charges to the property owners would be interest free. <br />Mr. Magliozzi stated that he does riot know who came to Ms. Cottonham's door. He noted that there <br />always was a record that there would be a charge to the owners along Huey Street. The seven dollars <br />and ninety cent ($7.90) charge was also mentioned in the letter and that charge is allowed by State <br />law. He noted that any properties located within three hundred (300) feet of a sewer line are <br />expected to pay this charge which helps for the construction and maintenance of that line for the <br />future benefit of that property owner. <br />In regards to the Resolution submitted by Mr. Snyder, Mr. Magliozzi stated that this is the first time <br />he has seen it and he can only offer to look into it. <br />Councilmember Varner stated, for the benefit of Mrs. Cottomham, that the three thousand dollar <br />($3,000.00) charge is not applicable until the property owner hooks up to the service. The line will <br />be placed in the street and will be available for use at any time in the future and that is when the <br />charge will come into effect. He stated that anyone who is not on City sewer and has a sewer line <br />in front of their home should have the seven dollar and ninety cent ($7.90) charge and it is the <br />responsibility of the Water Works to make sure that charge is in place. <br />Councilmember Coleman asked Mr. Magliozzi to outline the payment plan available. Mr. <br />Magliozzi stated that the property owners do not need to hook up right away but it is available when <br />they need it. The payment plan is for five (5) years with no interest be assessed. <br />After having a brief opportunity to read the Resolution supplied by Mr. Snyder, Mr. Magliozzi noted <br />that it is a Board of Public Works Resolution. However, he does not know why these improvements <br />were not done. The Resolution states that the line would be installed for the benefit to the property <br />liable to be assessed for said improvement and equal to the estimated cost of the same as reported <br />by the City Engineer. He noted that even if the improvements were made pursuant to this <br />Resolution, the property owners would have been charged one hundred per cent (100 %) of the cost. <br />Mr. Magliozzi noted that the current program offered is a much better deal for the property owners. <br />Councilmember Ujdak asked that Mr. Magliozzi do some research regarding the Resolution from <br />1974 and asked Mr. Snyder to please provide his telephone number so he can be contacted once the <br />City finds out what happened. <br />There was no one else present to speak to the Council concerning this bill. <br />Councilmember Kirsits made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council concerning this <br />bill as amended. Councilmember White "seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine <br />(9) ayes. <br />1 <br />L <br />