03/22/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

prior to getting trunk service to that area. In further response to Mr. Williams as to whether the properties involved had been previously assessed for sewer service, Mr. Teitzel said that the laterals had been installed and paid for by the developer, and it is assumed the cost was passed on to the individuals buying the lots. e_ Mr. Caruso brought up the question of the $2.00 water user charge collected by EUgene Water & Electric Board in connection with its billings for water and electric service. . He objected to paying the $2.00 fee when his property was not connected to a sewer. He further stated an understanding he had from someone in the public works department that the $2.00 per month would pay for connection to the city sewer to the extent of $84.00. He said he was told that when $84.00 had been paid through this $2.00 charge, there would be no further connection charge, only the $2.00 water user fee each month. He said he was also told that if the $2.00 fee was not paid, his water service would be disconnected. He added that a neighbor of his, in the same situation, was not being billed this $2.00 fee. Both Councilmen Williams and Haws and Mr. Teitzel explained that the purpose of the $2.00 fee, paid by all users of EWEB water regardless of whether they live in- side or outside the city, was to pay the cost of maintenance of trunk sewers and sewage treatment plant. It was understood the statements reported by Mr. Caruso would be investigated to correct any possible misunderstanding. Mr. Caruso mentioned also a $3.00+ charge included in the electric bill which he felt should be itemized. Councilman Haws commented that he would be "uncomfortable explaining what EWEB does." Mr. Caruso brought the discussion back to the cost of sewer connections and said he thought it should be paid by the developer. Mr. Williams answered that that would a be a legal issue between the property owner and the developer. He added that when ., the sewers were finally connected to trunk service, the only cost would be that connection charge (in addition to the 1/2~ levy if it is deferred to that time). Mr. Teitzel explained that the connection cost would depend upon whether lines were installed from the house to the street. It is not known whether the developer installed connection lines to the houses; if not, there would be some additional cost to the property owner in getting those lines extended to the laterals. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed but defer payment until trunk sewer is installed and the area actually served. 2.C.B.1051 - Special sewer levy in Woodhaven Subdivision, Phase I (73-1005) No written protests or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. 3.C.B.1052 - Levying assessments for paving and sidewalk on Chambers Street from McLean Boulevard to Lorane Highway (75-24) No written protests or requests to be heard were received, other than from Ed Wheeler, 3320 Chambers Street, who wanted to attend the hearing with regard to deferred portion of the assessment. Mr. Teitze1 advised that Mr. Wheeler had phoned, saying he would not attend. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. 4. C.B.1053 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within ~ English Oaks Subdivision, and Lindley Lane from Centennial Boulevard to Bardell Avenue (75-33) No written protests or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. ~6'b,.. 3/22/76 - 14