01-23-17 Utilities - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilmember Tim Scott stated, Just a point to that: when we passed the original, there were a lot of developers wanting to make sure that got done and that we move forward so that they know what they are getting into. Committeemember Dr. Varner asked, Correct me if I'm wrong: the whole ordinance is in effect, save this one consideration? Is that a misunderstanding? Mr. Horvath responded, Let me try to bring some clarity to that. We appreciate IN Tek and I/N Kote as a customer and what they do for economic development in the area. I would be more than happy to push this back, but the issue that I'm concerned with, more than anything, is the fact that we have these existing assessments and compacts. The piece that's in the City is already resolved, and we know we are doing SDC's there. The problem is that I can't charge those outside of the County. So, a developer comes in to connect to a property that is outside of the County, I would have to charge reassessments for the sewer base and square footage of property and lien front footage for water, and then we are also going to have to look at the compact fees and what to do with those, if they are still in place. That's my biggest issue with this and why I want it to move forward, but by all means, at the same time, we should be expeditiously moving forward with I/N Tek and I/N Kote to try to come to a resolution on a special rate. We can do that as quickly as you can. Committeemember Davis asked, So, if we pass tonight, we just pass with the understanding that they may go ahead and file something against us?They can do that anyway, no matter what, right? Mr. Schmidt responded, I can't definitely speak towards I/N Tek and I/N Kote's intentions, but I don't think that it's their intention to hold over the City any type of potential litigation. Our thought is that we have had some preliminary discussions with them. They're motivated, we're motivated. They have reasons to present to us to justify the special rate. You heard several of them when Mr. Nussbaum presented. We believe that this is something that can move quickly. Committeemember Davis stated, We've allowed for that in the regular ordinance. So,they can come back at any time and address that. We can literally pass this tonight and if they don't like what was done they can go back and renegotiate. Councilmember Broden asked, Am I to understand that this section presented in the ordinance before us (17-29),that they've not done that before? Mr. Schmidt responded, I/N Tek and I/N Kote,to my understanding, has not had a private user agreement. The only one that I'm aware of being out there is the University of Notre Dame. Committeemember Oliver Davis made a motion to send Bill No. 66-17 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Committeemember Dr. David Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of four(4) ayes. 7