10/24/1988 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e cult question facing the City. Mr. Holmer cautioned against non-voluntary annexation that could create resentment among unwilling citizens. Ms. Brody reported staff is concerned that the program is not working and should be reevaluated. The immediate sewer hook-up schedule and the City's long-term ambition to annex the River Road/Santa Clara area are two separate issues that are tied together for policy reasons. Ms. Brody said the City was committed to having sewer hook-ups completed for 15 percent of the exist- ing systems by the end of 1988, but only four percent of those connections have occurred. ., Terry Smith, Public Works Department, said he spoke with representatives of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) about the City's inability to meet the sewer hook-up schedule mandated by the grant the City received from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He anticipated that in exchange for granting an extension of the schedule's deadlines, DEQ would issue an order requiring the construction of a sewer system in the River Road/Santa Clara area by a specific date. The City would probably be the jurisdiction mandated to do this. Mr. Rutan said the City has the option to inform the State that an unsuccess- ful attempt had been made to meet the hook-up schedule and the State would have to assume responsibility for a new schedule. Mr. Smith said State law gives cities unique authority regarding sewers, both within and outside city limits. He said the City can extend sewers beyond e its boundaries, assess for them, and form local improvement districts. If Bancroft financing is provided within the city, it must also be made avail- able to residents outside the city. The City lacks authority to require connection to that sewer. As a condition for acquiring an EPA grant, Lane County passed an ordinance authorizing the County to require hook up. Mr. Rutan said the City must determine the extent to which it will be respon- sible for the execution of the program. Mr. Smith explained that if the City renegotiates the schedule but then does not live up to the obligations of the grant, the EPA could ask the City for repayment. The DEQ could intercept State distribution of funds and could exercise court powers for cease and desist. Responding to a question, Mr. Gleason said that while the grant money did not provide infrastructure within the City, its conditions aided the City in gaining approval for its Metropolitan Plan and focused attention on the environmental and health risks resulting from the ground water pollution in the area. Ms. Brody said that if the DEQ follows the anticipated course of action, the City may want to consider two options for meeting the extended connection schedule: 1. Pursue a council-initiated annexation of the River Road area, which would almost certainly be remonstrated and an election would decide e MINUTES--City Council October 24, 1988 Page 3 Work Session