08/12/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Councilman Williams asked if Ms. Kerns could build on her property only if the sewer was constructed if there was no way she could pump to the Spring Boulevard line and a septic tank was not permitted. Mr. Allen answered that in some instances a septic tank was allowed with a pump installed to take effluent into a sewer line, but that would be subject to County Health Department approval and would require easements to the Spring Boulevard line. ~ Other than that the only way Ms. 'Kerns' property could gain sewer service would be to run ..., a private line connecting to the 28th Avenue sewer. Councilman Wood said it appeared that installation of the sewer would aid in filling in vacant land in line with community goals. However, he thought some other solution should be sought if it was intended to extend the line beyond this area rather than to burden es- tablished property owners any more than necessary. Councilwoman Beal asked for clarification of a possible connection to the Spring Boulevard line. She wondered why the city could not permit that type of installation. Mr. Allen answered that issuance of permits for septic tanks was a County responsibility. The city '.s jurisdichon would apply only if it was decided to run a private line to the 28th Avenue sewer, and if that was done it would have to be abandoned when the city sewer was installed. Councilman McDonald wortdered if use of septic tanks in this area would result in the same situation of more costly sewer installation as occurred in the Crest Drive Area when those tanks started failing. He asked if those people having sewer service from the Spring Boulevard line were aware at the time of connection to that line that some future system would be necessary that would have to be assessed to their p,roperties. Mr. Allen answered that County inspection would be necessary to determine the functioning of septic tanks in the Central Boulevard area at this time, and that could be requested if it was desired./~ The County was not requested to inspect the tanks at the time the petition for this sewer ~ was submitted. He added that an attempt was made to convey to the owners of properties connecting to the Spring Boulevard line that when permission was given to make that con- nection it would not exempt them from any future assessment for a properly designed system to serve the area. Councilwoman Beal wondered about the design of the proposed system and in discussion with Mr. Allen brought out that the line would be more expensive than normally would be the case because a goodly portion of abutting property could not be served by gravity-thus not benefiting from the installation. Also, that it would be an integral part,of an over- all system to serve the entire area and under the city's rules and policy would be the most economical system for the area. Mr. Allen repeated that properties on the west side of Spring Boulevard have not been assessed for use of the Spring Boulevard line. City policy, he said, was that no one within the city limits could be denied connection to an existing sewer line. However, use of a city line does not relieve properties from future assessment for a system designed for an overall area. Mr. Allen said that owners of every property subject to assessment for the Central Boulevard sewer had had a "free ride" to this point and had been told when permission was given for connection to the Spring Boulevard line that they would be subje~t to assessment in the future. He added that those objecting to installation of this.sewer on the basis of Code provision for city payment of assessment in certain instances' were misinterpreting the provision; that specific regula- ~ tion, he said, was written to apply to installation on the city limit line and permitted ~ city payment of assessment to avoid double assessment to properties inside the city abut- , ting one side of an installation.' .At' a later ,time when property outside the city abutting the other side of the installation ,was annexed the assessment cost would be recovered by the city. Councilman McDonald saw no reason to make an exception in this instance, especially since those using the Spring Boulevard line were made aware of possible future assessment. Councilwoman Campbell wondered how many owners of other properties which could be served by the proposed sewer would demand septic tanks if Ms. Kerns were given permission to use one. She felt sure, she said, with. the considerable.amount of property in that area yet to be developed that the County would not be inclined to grant ~eptic tank permits for all of it. Manager recognized the potential for subdivision and development of other properties along Central Boulevard. He said that at some time,in the future a sewer would have to be installed to serve that area and that future construction would not be less expensive than it was at this time. . In response to Mr; Chrones' statement that he had no int.ention of subdividing his property and that other properties were either bare ground or had been developed already, Manager said that in the event of change of ownership it was entirely possible that development would occur requiring sewer on that street. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to award contract to the low bidder (171jlt (Wick Bros. Excavation ~ $20,293.50) for construction of sanitary sewer on Central ~ Bpulevard from 28th Avenue to the south 1200 feet and between Central Boulevard and Spring Boulevard to serve all lots in Hunter's Haven Subdivision. Councilwoman Beal stated her aversion to voting in favor of the motion, but recognized that it was essential for the health of the general public that installation of sewer systems proceed because of ultimate failure of septic tank disposal systems. She said the Council .. "'-.,1' 8/12/74 - 8 2&\