08/12/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Boulevard which had changed ~wnership since the project was petitioned. She said that more than half of the total property owners were opposed to installation of the sewer because they were already connected to the sewer on Spring Boulevard. She said that when connection . of her property to the Spring Boulevard sewer was permitted she was told the sewer would not be assessed at that time but would be later and that the connection could be made so long as she did not object to construction of a sewer line below their property. She said she granted an easement on the west side of her property, but that it was never her understanding she would be assessed for a sewer other than the one used. She continued with description of lots in the area, sewer service, time schedules of construction of homes and sewer con- nections, and claimed there could not possibly be an overuse of the Spring Boulevard sewer as maintained by the engineering department. Mrs. Ma.yer said the majority of property owners who would be assessed for the Central Boulevard line were already adequately served by the Spring Boulevard line ,and they did not feel it necessary to construct another costly facility at their expense with the added expense of costly connections. She added that the affected property owners were open to communication; they felt they had a legitimate objection to the construction. I (1285) Jess Hayden, 2800 Spring Boulevard, saw no need for the sewer. He said septic tanks in the area were working well and that the cost of the proposed line would be too expensive for the many older retired people on fixed incomes owning property there. He asked elimination of this project on the basis that it was needed. to serve only a couple of properties. (1358) David Dougherty, 2829 Central Boulevard, read a letter from William Siefke, 2837 Central Boulevard, also objecting to the sewer. Mr. Dougherty said neither he nor his neighbors . had been contacted with regard to petitioning the project and they had no knowledge of it prior to notice of bid award. He too felt there was no health hazard in the area, that septic tanks were working satisfactorily, and that the sewer line was not needed. . . . .. (1407) Manager explained the city's position that eventually all properties within the city, would be served by public sewer, that septic tanks were not considered a permanent sewage disposal installation even though in satisfactory working condition. He pointed out that it was not the city's responsibility to see that petitions were carried to each property owner in a neighborhood; 'the city received petitions carried at the pleasure of_those desiring. public facilities. However, petitions constituted no legal requirement for Council authorization of a project. They simply indicated a citizen desire for a facility and the city general~y accepted them for sanitary sewers regardless of the percentage. Manager further explained that the public hearing was held at this point,' after bid opening, so that a.good estimate of the cost involved would be available. So thile the Council did accept the petitions, he said in response to Mr. Dougherty's concern about not being forewarned, the Council at this time does have the choice of proceeding or abandoning the project. .J In response to Mr. Dougherty, Mr. Allen said the estimated ll~ per square foot would cover the cost of work under this specific .contract,.that the connection from the lateral sewer to the' house would be an, added expense to each property owner. He emphasized the city's reponsibility for design of a complete system. He said the properties on the west side of . Spring Boulevard annexed to the city in order to make connection to the Spring Boulevard line. The city had the option at that time, under code provision, to charge for that con- nection. However, that option was not exercised on the basis that it would ma~e the Central Boulevard sewer, when it was constructed, more expensive. He said the properties on the west side of Spring Boulevard were included in the permanent system the city was trying to build at this time. Also, he said, abQut 90% of the land on the west side of Central Boulevard could not be assessed (Laurelwood Golf Court) under legal requirements. The Spring Boulevard properties would have availability of a sewer paid for entirely by other people. He thought it doubtful that they could have been forced to use the Spring Boulevard line even with assessment because of the gravity flow versus pumping situation. Mr. Allen felt the bid price on this project was a good one in spite of the current inflationary trend. He also. called attention to the fact that no testimony was presented when public hearing. was held when ordinance for construction of the project was adopted. In response to the Manager, Mr. Allen said an extension of the proposed sewer line was not contemplated at this time. " And he estimated the Hayden assessment at about $3500 to $4000. . - Phyllis Kerns, 856 East 19th Avenue, said she bought her property abutting Central Boulevard from the Barbers with the understanding from the Public Works Department that a sewer would be installed to serve that area. When she found the neighbors epposedto the installation she attempted to get a permit for a septic tank or a connection to.allow pumping into the Spring Boulevard sewer. Neither was allowed, she said, and she was caught with property on which she could not build. The Garbers, from whom she bought the property, indicated -, they thought the sewer should be constructed to utilize full use of properties in that area. M. G. ,Chrones , 284l'Central Boulevard, said he was opposed to installation of the, sewer because it would give needed service to only two lots. . , There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. " . (1556) Manager.noted letters on file from those speaking indicating essentially the same position as stated in their testimony. 250 8/12/74 - 7