Referred to the City Council due back on 3/13/2024
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1332
SARGENT AVENUE. (File No. CG2303A2, Assessment No. 230113)
4
RLH TA 24-62
Jost
Sponsors:
Reduce from $551.89 to $116.40.
Moermond: This is for a reduction recommended by staff?
Staff report by Garbage Specialist Lydia Campbell: The property owner here states
that in 2022 their garbage collection was stopped by the hauler. The property owner
had not requested this, nor was he contacted by Waste Management about it. When
he finally straightened it out, the property owner received a bill for six total quarters of
service. The property owner states that the automatic complaint service at Waste
Management said he had no active account. He agrees that he might owe something
but doesn't think he should pay for a full 1.5 years. Because back billing for garbage
service is not allowed per our coordinated collection contract, staff recommend
reducing the Quarter 2 bill to only include service from January 1-June 30. The property
had a 96 gallon cart for two quarters. After our conversation yesterday, I believe we are
now reducing that to just include the one quarter. The reduction is to $116.40
Moermond: Originally it was a reduction to $338.37, but then after a conversation
about how the contract would impact previous quarter billing, we went with the lower
figure of $116.40. That wouldn't include late fees. That probably shouldn't include late
fees, even though it wasn't paid on time because there was an ongoing discussion
between the hauler and the customer about what the right bill should have been. I
recommend a reduction to $116.40.
Referred to the City Council due back on 3/13/2024
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 900
5
RLH TA 24-60
WESTMINSTER STREET. (File No. CG2304A2, Assessment No. 230115)
Kim
Sponsors:
Delete the assessment.
Staff report by Garbage Specialist Lydia Campbell: The owner purchased the property
on April 26, 2023. The Quarter 3 invoice from Waste Management showed that she
was billed for prorated Quarter 2 service starting on May 14th, 2023, pick up of two
large appliances, and Quarter 3 service. The property owner states that she had
already paid that bill so she should not owe the assessment. She showed proof of
payment to Waste Management on July 25, 2023 for $187.52. However, her quarter
three invoice was for $217.82. The charge sent to the City for assessment by Waste
Management was for $133.87. The owner then paid $4.78 of that assessment to the
City. Waste Management is unable to account for the difference in the assessment
they sent versus the amount paid by the property owner. After deliberating over the
issue with the City for about a week, Waste Management declined to answer any more
questions about the matter and asked that the case be closed. For this reason, we are
recommending a full removal of the assessment.
Moermond: What that translates to is that if you're not talking to us, we are in no
position to assess on your behalf to collect this bill. When this gets deleted, that
would be a part of the money that Waste Management would have been expecting the
City to include in its check to them. It won't get this amount in that check, correct?