HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-08-19; City Council; 3448; Partial refund of sewer connection fee, W.J.BolichI
6
. .+ CITY 0::' CARLSRAD
DATE: August 19, 1975 k- C. Mgr.
I_
DEPARTMENT : Engineering
Subject :
-I -- -
PARTIAL REFUND OF SEWER CONNECTION FEE, WILLIAM J. BOLICH, 3951 PARK DR.
Statement of the Matter
Mr. Bolich has requested refund 0.f $200 sewer connection fee, paid under protest to obtain a building permit for a residence at the above address. The subdivider who created the lot acquired by Mr. Bolich had previously paid a $50 connection fee and extended a sewer lateral into the lot, before the fee was raised to $250, effective July 1, 1974. This infrequent situation is not treated in the Municipal Code and'staff agrees that a $200 refund is due.
Exhibit
a. letter €rom Mr. Bolich, rio date
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council direct the Finance Director
to issue a refund of $200 to Mr. William J. Bolich.
Council action
8-19-75 The Council accepted staff recommendation and directed the Finance Director to issue a refund of $200.00 to William 3. Bolich.
c
\'jl.lilatIl .I. BOILCL,
3970 Park Drive
Carl sbad, Ca I ifornia
--** 9 2 008
I c Citv Manager
City of Carlsbad
Car lsbad , California
Subj: Sewer Connection Fee; 3951 Park Drive, Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen,
This letter is with respect to the sewer connection fee covering the new
residence being constructed by the undersigned as owner-bui lder at the
above locat ion.
On February 19, 1974, the required fee of $50 was paid by the then owner
of the property, Mr. Jack Kubota. Permit No. SE 1221 was issued. Kubota
commenced and completed the installation of the sewer laterals serving
the rear lots of the Parcel Map-
On August 27, 1974, permits were taken out. by the undersigned for the con-
struction of the house on Parcel 2, Parcel Map 1341, the subject of this
letter. At that time, the matter of the new ordinance was brought up and
the payment of an additional $200 was requested by the city. The matter
was discussed at great length by the undersigned and Mr. Flanagan with the
result that he was to discuss t.he matter with the City Attorney and advise
me whether I would have to pay the additional $200 or not. It was mv opinion
then, as now, that the additional assessment was unfair and out of order,
The matter was apparently dropped, for I had no further responsc and pro-
ceeded to construct the home,
The assessment-is considered unwarranted for the following reasons:
Under Ordinance 7043 it is stated tbat the fee of $250 shall
be assessed prior to the issuance of a scwer connection permit.
Permit No. SE1221 was already a matter of record.
The ordinance states that connection to the sewer system shall
not be permitted without. first obtiniiig a "valid" permit. I was
permitted to complete the sewer connect ion along wi.th the rough
plumbing during construction.
The ordinance further states that every permit issued pursuant
to this section shall expire by limitation if work is not commenced
or is abandoned. The ordinance specifically refers to work "on
the connection." Such work was at no the was ahandoned. In any
event Permit SE 1221 was issued under Ordinance 7041. Ordinance
7043 was not effective until June 30, 1974.
I
Accordingly, and in order that I might obtain clearance for occupanry,
the additional amount of -$200 i.s herewit.h paid, however UNDER PROTEST,
and with the specific request that this individual matter be revi-ewed,
that the apparent inequity of Ordinance 7043 he reviewed and that con-
sideration be given, under the circiimstances out lined for the reimburse-
ment to the undersigned of the additional $200 pai.d. It is not considered
to be a just charge.
If necessary and appropriate, I would be happv to have t.tiis matter heard
befo;e the City Council.
Awaiting your early reply, I remain
cc: City Engineer
City Attorney
Nr. Jack Kubota