03/22/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-e - Mrs. Beal also referred to the city costs on Items 2 and 3, expL-essing hope that eventually costs will be borne by developers, not the taxpuycrs. Mr. Gilman explained that the cost is for a larger trunk size for additional area to be served. There would be a problem with equity in assessing the property owner or developer for tne larger trunk line. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. 4.Sanitary sewer on Cross Place from Cross Street to 300 feet north - Petitioned by owners of 13.71% of property to be assessed, no city cost involved. Manager explained that the project was sought by some property owners having strong interest in obtaining city sewer service; however complications were present be- cause of an existing old sewer and previous assessment paid by a portion of the property that would be served by the proposed line. e '- Don Gilman, assistant public works director, explained that the area which would be served by the proposed sewer was in an older section of the city where an existing sewer was constructed in 1925. A small subdivision was developed about 1944, without benefit of public sewers, which created Cross Place extending north from Cross Street. Several private lines were installed which are now beginning to fail - about 14 or 15 properties are involved. Mr. Gilman suggested that if the Council did not wish to accept the petition based on the small percentage, perhaps a poll of the area could be taken to determine the position of the property owners who did not sign the petition. He added that about half the properties involved lie within the area previously assessed for the old city sewer, and al- though they would benefit from construction of the proposed system, the city probably would not be able to assess them for part of the cost under normal city policy. Councilman Murray expressed concern about going ahead with the project, especially because of the precedent involved with regard to those properties for which assess- ments have already been paid. In response to Assistant Manager, Mr. Gilman explained that about half the area petitioning the new system lies within the area previously assessed; about half is outside the old assessment area. The petition was sub- mitted because some of the lines are becoming plugged, are collapsing or generally are presenting some type of problem. Ruth Metzger, 147 Cross Place, described the problems property owners on her side of Cross Place were having with lines becoming plugged and sewage backing up into their houses. She said that properties on the other side of the street had never had any trouble with the lines. In response to Mayor Anderson, Mr. Gilman said that the 13+% on the petition re- presented three properties. As to whether it was definitely a health hazard, he said it was at least a nuisance to those having the problems. Mr. Keller,asked for comments regarding a sewer installed in the University area at city expense under similar conditions. Mr. Gilman answered that in that instance the installa- tion replaced a city sewer that was deteriorating; this system if installed would take the place of private lines. Further, those private lines were connected to the city sewer with no charge ever having been made for the connection. - Councilman Murray asked which properties were originally assessed and for what. Mr. Gilman pointed out the area on a map and indicated those properties lying beyond the 160-foot area assessed for the city sewer to which the private lines were connected without any charge levied. "-' Mr. Murray wondered if authorization could be given to exempt those few properties that had already been assessed, but the Mayor thought legal problems would be en- JSI 3/22/76 - 9