|
<br /> 'mission' and a chance to' ~ee . th"?-t the matter is :fairly treatf:~d'.' Suggestion was Comm
<br /> made to discuss the item at the joint'meeting with'the Planning CORmllssion 9/13/72
<br /> scheduled for September 18, and it was agreed it would be "placed ,'on that agenda. Approve
<br /> l .: .'. . ~ ... '..
<br /> . Leigh Iverson, speaking for Breeden Bros. " ,366 East '40th 'Avenue, opposed: withdrawal of a portion
<br /> of this "annexation , saying Breeden Bros. development in that area W(ijS platted on he basis of
<br /> the entire property's being served withCitystre~ts ~ndsewers 'and public ~tiiities. He read
<br /> statistic~ showing a ~~jority of the residents ,of the, area favor, annexation, and, requested that
<br /> the area be left in'i:he City. Mayor Anderson 'explained that the 'reason for referring the matter
<br /> to the 'BoUndary Commission with a recommendation for withdrawal was,to gain a public hearing
<br /> for those people who had not had an opportunity to be heard when the area was originally annexed.
<br /> A. W. Giles, 2220 Hawkins Lane, 'commented that any poll does not offset the requirement for
<br /> public hearing prior to annexation, and that notice was n~t given'p~operty owners in the area.
<br /> They were not a.ware of ' the annexation, until' after' it ha~ taken effect. ' . "
<br /> "
<br /> C. Proposed Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer District~' Letter from Boundary CORmllssion
<br /> was read asking if the City ~uld modify its policy to allow a sanitary district
<br /> to use ~ts trea~men~ plant. .If so, what charges or,fees would be imposed, .and if
<br /> not.' what alternatives would the City 'offe.r to-Santa. Clara residents in 'an effort
<br /> to solve their sard,tadon probiems. i>ianning Commission recommended against crea-
<br /> tionor'the District, the question will be '~ matter for discussio~ at the joi~t
<br /> ' , ,
<br /> meeting of the Council and Planning Commission September 18. Questions are rai~ed
<br /> about annexation of the area to the City, a plan for equitable financing of an
<br /> urban area sewer system currently b~ing developed by ,Bartle Wells, the City's,
<br /> . treatment plant capacity for future City iJrowth through denser interior deveiop-
<br /> ment and/or anne~ation and costs thereof. '
<br /> . ..1
<br /> Draft of a poi'sible response to the:Boundary COImnissJon was' read: "If a Santa Clara
<br /> Sanitary'Se.wer District is formed the City Council would be willing to confer about
<br /> a contractual arrangement to provide sewage treatment se~vice'if the Couricil is con-
<br /> vinced that such an arrangement would ,be (a) the best solution to the development
<br /> of a regional sewer service, (b) in the. best interests of the regional concept of
<br /> orderly growth as prescribed by adopted policies '. (c) in the best interests of the
<br /> people of Santa Clara, and (d) in the best interests of the citizens of Eugene.
<br /> The City Council is n<;>t able to 'respond to the questions about the azrount of fees
<br /> and charges since such information would be developed in formulating a propose'd
<br /> contract. "
<br /> Donald Husband,"attorney for the Santa Clara "people, was called upon f<;>r comment
<br /> and said he was not prepared to respond and. would rather a formal hearing be held.
<br /> Councilman Williams suggested the statement be modified to provide that the Council
<br /> would be willing to confer about providing sewage treatment if approval of such a
<br /> contract would be based upon Council evaluation or consideration of Items a', b, c,
<br /> and d as contained in the stat~ment.
<br /> -- ' ,
<br /> Mr. Husband sa~d the proposed sanitary sewer distri~t would further the 1990 Plan,
<br /> not hinder it, and that he felt the Boundary Comndssion in its consideration of
<br /> the proposal did not understand that. He said regardless of whether the Eugene
<br /> plant is used or another plant, the effluent still would go into the river.
<br /> Councilman Bradshaw was concerned that people in the Santa Clara area should de-
<br /> cide which method would be used to solve that area's sanitation problems and the
<br /> City should not be concerned, particularly the City should not say that annexation
<br /> is the best solution.
<br /> Mrs. Beal move?l s~conded by Mr. Mohr to approve the statement incorporating the
<br /> change' suggested by Councilman Williams, making it read: "If a Santa Clara Sanitary
<br /> Sewer District is formed the City Council would be willing to confer about a con-
<br /> tractual arrangelTlent to provide sew.age treatment service, approval of which is con-
<br /> tingent upon the Council's conviction that such an arrangement would be:.. .."
<br /> Mrs. C~pbell commented that it has been of particular concern to the Council, in
<br /> the past when special districts have been set up. Manager said this is the first
<br /> sanitary sewer district, there are rio others. The question of the use of the City's
<br /> treatment plant, he said, would be of interest'to the City. It is not a'question
<br /> . of the City's opinion on whether the District should be formed, but whether co-
<br /> operative arrangeme~t could'be worked out for use of the treatment plant if the
<br /> District is formed. 'He said discussion of formation of the District with the Plan-
<br /> -, ning CORmllssion is scheduled at the joint 'meeting on September 18.' In answer to
<br /> Mrs. Campbell, he said', the final report h?s just beenrece~ ved from Bartle Wells
<br /> on financing regional', sewers. lfayor Anderson sai d the Council in approving this Comm
<br /> statement is not adopting a policy stat~ment, merely saying the City will talk 9/13/72
<br /> about possible use 'of its 'treatment plant. Approve
<br /> Yote I<l[as taken on the .moti,on as stated. Moti on carried unanimously.
<br /> ,Z 85' 9(25(72 - 7
<br />
|