10/09/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

---- In answer to coun~i'iirian Williams, Mr. Wells explained the proposed escalating . charge for connection to the trunk system. Using this type of financing, annexed areas will pay the same allOunt for service as those areas within the cities which have paid for existing sewers. He said this would apply to trunk connections; lateral connections would still require benefit assessments. ~ Discussion turned to cost to residents of the cities for expansion of treatment -- ,facilities in the event of annexation of large areas, Mrs. Beal saying people living I,in the core city should not have to pay the cost of extending services. Mr. Wells 'said expansion to treatment facilities is going to be necessary because of normal .. growth regardless of large annexations, and if for no other reason than to upgrade 'quality of discharge to the river. He emphasized the importance of overcoming deferred maintenance on existing sewerage systems. He called attention to the pro- :posed high connection fee intended to cover trunk line costs wi thout the elaborate :or costly benefit assessment procedure. ! 'Mr. Hershner asked if new development within the city would be subject to this es- calating charge. Mr. Wells answered if costs have already been paid to the city for ;properties abutting existing sewers they would not be subject to the charge. If a ~:property is not now served and becomes served, connection would be offered at a re- lduced charge if made in a reasonable length of time. New dwelling units would pay ! :the same costs but outside areas would not be served until annexed. : I iIn answer to Councilman Mohr, Mr. Wells said he would be available for further dis-'- cussion of the proposed financing plan and its implementation. I -Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Br~dsh~w to authorize ~ayor Anderson to enter . into discussion with the Mayor of Spr~ngf~eld and the Cha~rman of the Lane County IComrndssioners to determine whether the plan should be adopted, and authorize ap- :pointment of an advisory committee for its implementation if the plan is adopted. COJDIl) :Motion carried, unanillOusly. 10/4172 Manager noted that success to some extent relies upon a very vigorous effort by Apprvve I the City in correcting infiltration problems which result from construction standards or faulty installation of house connections or private sewer systems to the public sewer. If regional sewers are to be provided, storm drains running into the sewer system will have to be taken out. There is money in this program for engineering help to determine what needs to be done, but there will still be some costs to the people in correcting their private systems. He said the Council ,should be aware of this factor. -- ---" - - G. Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer District - Planning Commission September 12, 1972 recom- mended affirmative action be withheld at this time. In making the recommendation they reported "The .Planning Commission recognizes that equitable financing, treat- ment plant capacity in relation to City growth, the importance of a long-term 'regional solution, and the political implications of annexation must be thoroughly considered prior to making a reliable recommendation. The-Commission also recog- nizes the Boundary-Commission is legally_bo.und to take affirmative or negative . action in October, but that,den~al. would not prevent reconsideration following . resolution of the aforementioned factors." The recommendation was reaffirmed after jjoint meeting of the Council and Planning commission September 18, 1972. [Manager said previous discussion did not point toward actual creation of such a district. Planning-Commission in its report feels time should be allowed for ex- I 'ploration of other alternatives and if they are proved to be impractical, then the ';Boundary Commission can reinitiate the quest:f-on on its own motion. , 'Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to transmi t the Planning Commission recom- mendation to the Boundary Commission. Councilman Williams expressed concern about recommending against creation of the district when the Boundary Commission has just been advised the City will discuss possible use of its treatment plant by a Santa. Clara district. Manager said the response to the Boundary Commission with regard to use of the City's treatment plant was conditioned on a number of things - that a district was formed, the con- viction that that was the best solution, etc. - and that there appeared to be noth- ing incompatible in asking that the district not be created until other alternatives have been looked at. Legalities require that a decision be made by the Boundary C . commission at this time; it cannot be postponed, but the Commission can bring the 10/4~r:;; . matter back if it is denied. A . pprove Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. H:Withdrawal, Hawkins Lane Annexation - Planning Comrndssion September 18, 1972 reported '. reaffirmation of previous .recommendation to wi thdraw the Hawkins Lane area annexed by the Boundary Commission in expansion of Breeden Bros. annexation request. In ~~~ 10/9/72 - 8