HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 02/19/1991 (3) Public Works Committee
February 19, 1991
Page 2
Proposed Resolution Outside City Water and Sewer Extensions
Wickstrom stated he was suggesting a couple of modifications to the
Resolution to 1) be sure the Resolution only addressed new services
and would not affect our existing commitments and 2) address
existing developments that may want to connect to the city's
utilities. Wickstrom explained that by commitments he was
referring to water/sewer availabilities that have already been
granted. He added that existing developments don't generate any
new traffic impacts.
Addressing the issue of existing developments, Wickstrom stated
that the proponents of LID 337 will be bringing this before the
Council again. They were confused as to whether they should have
attended the public hearing as our notices indicate that only those
protesting the project should attend. Wickstrom pointed out there
was in reality only about 10% of the assessed value that protested
the project. There is 42% of the assessed value on record as being
in favor of the project. Additionally, those that don't protest
are counted as being in favor of the project.
White asked if this resolution were passed if the City would be
able to extend service outside the city to existing developments
via an LID. After discussion, Dowell commented that he felt there
should be something in the resolution that allows us to do that
especially if requested by an authority such as the Health
Department. White stated his intent with this resolution was to
address new construction that adds additional traffic. He was not
expressing concern about extending utilities to existing
developments that would not be adding additional traffic. Orr and
Dowell agreed with that. Morris stated that Wickstrom's revisions
of the resolution made that clear. Dowell expressed concerns about
developments going in around the City with septic systems. Morris
pointed out that the resolution does not change the status quo.
Now the growth management act does not allow us to annex property
outside the urban designated growth areas. We don't know what the
urban designated growth areas are going to be as the County is
responsible for that designation. In order for developments to get
extension of utility services, petitions for annexation have to be
signed. If we don't know where the urban growth areas area, we
don't know where we can annex; thus, we can't extend utility
services. The Committee unanimously recommended approving the
amendments proposed by Wickstrom to the resolution and to take it
before the Council.
0