HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Wastewater Service Extension Policy Discussion AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 3/19/2012
Meeting Type:Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Ken Vogeney/PW
Staff Phone No: 541-736-1026
Estimated Time: 45 minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Maintain and Improve
Infrastructure and
Facilities
ITEM TITLE: WASTEWATER SERVICE EXTENSION POLICY DISCUSSION
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Provide direction to staff concerning City involvement with extending wastewater
service to unserved properties both within and outside of current City limits.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
Does the City Council desire to modify its policies for assisting property owners
with the cost to construct public wastewater main extensions to serve developed
properties within the City limits and/or the Urban Transition Area?
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Briefing Memorandum
2. Septic System Inventory Map
3. Anderson Lane Map
4. 10th & Q Streets Map
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
On October 17, the City Council held a Work Session concerning a request from a
property owner on Anderson Lane for City assistance with extending a public
wastewater main to the property because the on-site septic system is failing.
Council requested staff to come back with a broader discussion on the City’s
funding policy concerning wastewater service extensions.
The City’s current policy is derived from several sources and can be summarized as
follows:
• A permit cannot be issued to construct or repair a septic system if the
property is within 300 feet of a wastewater system that is both physically
and legally available to provide that service; and
• The property being served must be within Springfield city limits to be
served by the Springfield wastewater system; and
• A property must abut City limits to be eligible for annexation; and
• The full cost to extend a public 8-inch diameter wastewater pipe to, and
through the frontage of, the property is assessable to (shall be paid by) the
benefitted property owner(s).
As discussed in Attachment 1, staff has identified three typical situations where
Council could consider modifying its policy direction to assist property owners:
I. Properties within City limits that remain on septic systems because there is
no public system available to them;
II. Properties with failing septic systems that are outside of City limits and
within 300 feet of a public sewer; and
III. Coordination with other public construction projects.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield 3/15/2012Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 3/8/2012
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Len Goodwin, Assistant Public Works Director
Ken Vogeney, City Engineer
BRIEFING
Subject: WASTEWATER SERVICE POLICY
DISCUSSION
MEMORANDUM
ISSUE: Does the City Council desire to modify its policies for assisting property owners with
the cost to construct public wastewater mains to serve developed properties within the City
limits and/or the Urban Transition Area?
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities
The City is responsible to plan, operate, and maintain the local wastewater collection system.
As new users of the system are identified, the City works with those users to ensure that the
system has the needed capacity in a useful location to provide the desired service.
BACKGROUND:
On October 17, 2011, staff presented a request from the property owner at 672 Anderson Lane
for City assistance with extending a public wastewater main to this property as the septic system
is failing. Council directed staff to bring the broader policy concerning the provision of
wastewater service to the Council for an in-depth discussion prior to providing direction to staff
on this specific request.
Current Policy:
The City’s current policy for providing wastewater service to unserved properties is derived
from several sources, including: Oregon Administrative Rules, the Springfield Municipal Code,
and City Council Resolution 70-45 regarding city participation for wastewater improvements.
A. According to Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 340-071-0160), a permit to repair a
septic system cannot be issued if the property is within 300 feet of a wastewater system
that is both physically and legally available. The Rule defines a system as being
physically available when:
• Topography or manmade features do not make the connection physically impractical;
and
• For single-family dwellings, the nearest system connection point is within 300 feet of
the property.
The OAR defines a wastewater system as being legally available if the system is:
• Not under a Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) connection permit
moratorium; and
• The system owner is willing or obligated to provide the service.
B. The Springfield Municipal Code (Chapter 3.350) requires that a property connect, at the
owner’s expense, to the City wastewater system if the property is within city limits and
within 300 feet of a public system. In addition, Section 2.02.1 of the City’s Engineering
Design Standards manual requires that a new public wastewater main be extended to the
boundary of a development by the developer if that main will logically serve land
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM 3/15/2012 Page 2
outside of the development area.
C. City Council Resolution 70-45 establishes that the City pays for constructing public
wastewater mains in excess of 8-inches in diameter, unless the main is being constructed
as part of a development project, where the City pays for the additional cost that may be
incurred to install a main that is either larger or deeper than the size or depth needed to
serve that development.
DISCUSSION:
The underlying question for providing public wastewater service to unserved properties is: Who
pays? Historically, Springfield, and many other cities, have established policies whereby the
initial cost to construct the public local collection system is borne by the abutting/benefitting
properties, and the on-going cost to operate and maintain the system is borne by the public at-
large, i.e. the wastewater rate payers.
There are several situations that could justify a different approach if the Council so desires:
I. Properties within City limits that remain on septic systems because there is no public
system available to them;
II. Properties with failing septic systems that are outside of City limits and within 300 feet
of a public wastewater main; and
III. Coordination with other public construction projects.
Each of these situations is discussed below, along with possible policy options for Council to
consider.
I. Properties within City limits that remain on septic systems because there is no public
system available to them.
Staff has been working to identify the properties within current City limits that are on septic
systems (see Attachment 2, Septic System Inventory Map), and have found 195 so far. Of
these, 76 have service to or within 50 feet of the property so no public main extensions are
likely needed to connect to these properties. There are 94 properties within 300 feet or less
that will be required to extend the public system if their septic system fails. For the
remaining 24 properties, the public system needs to be extended more than 300 feet.
In addition to the distance from the public system, Council may also wish to consider when
the property was annexed to the City. Property owners often raise this issue when they are
having problems with their septic systems. As shown in the following table, 108 of the 119
properties that do not currently have wastewater service to the property were annexed before
1980:
Decade
Annexed
Within 300 Feet &
Need Main Extension
Beyond
300 Feet
Total by
Decade
1900 to 1909 4 - 4
1940 to 1949 24 2 26
1960 to 1969 36 5 41
1970 to 1979 22 15 37
1980 to 1989 2 - 2
1990 to 1999 5 - 5
2000 to 2010 2 2 4
Total 95 24 119
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 6
MEMORANDUM 3/15/2012 Page 3
The following matrix summarizes the pros and cons of the current policy and a potential new
policy for providing wastewater service to the 119 properties that are already annexed and
will require a public main extension to receive wastewater service:
Policy Options Pros Cons
I.a. Retain current policy that
property owners pay to extend
the system, either directly or
through a Local Improvement
District (LID), when they want
service.
1. All property owners
are treated the same way
and consistent with past
practice.
1. Often causes strife
within a neighborhood as
those who need service
due to a failing system try
to get their neighbors’
support for a LID petition.
2. Some property owners
who have been part of the
City for many years can
not have access to service
without the cooperation of
their neighbors and/or
significant expense.
I.b. City establishes one or more
Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) projects to extend
service to all properties within
city limits and collects Sanitary
Sewer In-lieu of Assessment
Fees, along with Systems
Development Charges (SDCs)
when the property connects to
the wastewater main. Projects
could be prioritized to extend
service in reverse order of
annexation – i.e. oldest
annexation areas first or by
their relationship to other
planned projects (see Section
III).
1. Service will be
available to each property
within city limits at the
time either they desire to
connect or when their
septic system fails.
2. The assessable portion
of the cost to construct the
extensions will eventually
be reimbursed to the City
through the In-lieu of
Assessment Fees.
1. City will be investing
in public infrastructure
before it is needed, with
the reimbursement on its
investment coming at
some undetermined time
in the future.
2. Could be perceived by
existing users as providing
a “special benefit” to a
few properties.
Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the current policy (Option I.a.).
II. Properties with failing septic systems that are outside City limits and within 300 feet of a
public wastewater main.
When a property with a failing septic system is within 300 feet of a City wastewater main that
is physically available for their use, the property is obligated to connect to the main if it is
legally available. In Springfield, a property can legally connect to the public system if the
property is annexed into the City, and under current City codes, a property must abut City
limits to be annexed.
Currently, there are about 1,182 parcels of land within Springfield’s Urban Transition Area
(UTA) and within 300 feet of a City wastewater main. Of these, it appears that 753 abut City
limits and 695 of those have existing structures (see Attachment 2). Staff does not have a way
to determine which of these properties may have failing/failed septic systems unless the
property owner contacts the City, such as the property at 672 Anderson Lane (see Attachment
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 6
MEMORANDUM 3/15/2012 Page 4
3, Anderson Lane Map).
The following matrix summarizes the pros and cons of the current policy and two potential
policy options for providing wastewater service to the 1,182 properties that are within
Springfield’s UTA and within 300 feet of Springfield’s wastewater system:
Policy Options Pros Cons
II.a. Retain current policy that
these property owners annex
to the City and then pay to
extend the system, either
directly or through a Local
Improvement District (LID).
1. All property
owners are treated the
same way.
1. Often causes strife within
a neighborhood as those who
need service due to a failing
system try to get their
neighbors’ support for a LID
petition.
2. The City Council only has
authority to initiate LIDs on
lands within city limits.
II.b. City could make findings that
the system is presently not
legally available because the
property is not annexed.
1. Affected property
owners will be able to
repair their septic
systems without
annexing to the City.
1. Annexation of developed
lands within the UTA will
essentially cease, as property
owners will no longer have
an incentive to become part
of the City.
2. May impede, or prevent,
City’s ability to annex land
for new development or
expanding the Urban Growth
Boundary because of
findings in the record that
wastewater service is not
legally available.
II.c. As funding is available, City
establishes one or more
Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) projects to assist
properties with failed/failing
septic systems and abutting
city limits to extend service on
an as requested basis, subject
to annexation to the City. City
then collects Sanitary Sewer
In-lieu of Assessment Fees,
along with Systems
Development Charges (SDCs)
when the property connects to
the system.
1. Service will be
available to properties
near city limits when
they are experiencing
a public health hazard
due to a failed septic
system.
2. Cost to construct
the extensions will
eventually be
reimbursed to the City
through In-lieu of
Assessment Fees.
1. Could be perceived by
existing users as providing a
“special benefit” to a few
properties.
Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the current policy (Option II.a.).
III. Coordination with other public construction projects
Occasionally during the planning and design of a public construction project, such as
wastewater pipe rehabilitation, staff finds that a new wastewater main extension is needed to
provide service to properties that are not currently served. Typically, staff will include the cost
Attachment 1
Page 4 of 6
MEMORANDUM 3/15/2012 Page 5
to extend the line in the CIP and Capital Budget request for the project, or include the extension
in the project if the cost of the additional work is within the planned contingency funding for
the project. If the main extension is considered a local collection line (typically 8-inch diameter
or less), the City will collect Sanitary Sewer In-lieu of Assessment Fees from the benefitted
properties when they connect to the new main. An example of this situation is three properties
along Q Street and six properties along R Street that are adjacent to the 10th & N Parallel Trunk
Sewer project that is currently under design (see Attachment 4, 10th & Q Streets Map).
The following matrix summarizes the pros and cons of the current staff practice and a potential
new policy concerning providing wastewater service to unserved properties in coordination
with other public construction projects:
Policy Options Pros Cons
III.a. Retain current staff practice to
include wastewater system
extensions in other public
projects through the CIP as
needed, subject to available
funding, and without requiring
formation of a LID.
1. Reduces future cost
of constructing a new
main by installing as
part of a larger project.
2. Protects structural
integrity of the street
by eliminating future
trench cuts, thereby
extending life of the
street.
3. Avoids public
perception of wasting
money by not
coordinating
construction work.
1. City will be investing in
public infrastructure before
it is needed, with the
reimbursement on its
investment coming at some
undetermined time in the
future.
2. Could be perceived by
existing users as providing a
“special benefit” to a few
properties.
III.b. Do not construct local
wastewater system extensions
unless requested and funded by
the benefitting property
owners.
1. Reduces City’s
initial cost for
constructing
wastewater systems.
2. Service is provided
to property owners
when they want it and
are willing to pay.
1. May result in situations
where recently constructed
streets need to be cut to
provide service.
Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the current staff practice (Option III.a.).
In addition to the policy discussions suggested by staff, the Council asked for information on
several questions during the October 17, 2011 Worksession concerning the specific request for
assistance from the owner of 672 Anderson Lane. Following are the Council’s questions and
staff responses:
1. Question: Is Lane County willing to partner with the City to provide wastewater mains
outside City Limits, perhaps with a LID?
Staff Response: County Public Works staff indicates a willingness to recommend approval
of County LIDs, if the property owners sign the appropriate petitions and the City agrees to
accept jurisdiction of the associated street rights-of-way.
Attachment 1
Page 5 of 6
MEMORANDUM 3/15/2012 Page 6
Attachment 1
Page 6 of 6
2. Question: Is the owner of the 18 properties in the Devonshire Subdivision on Anderson
Lane interested in a LID for wastewater main construction.
Staff Response: Staff has contacted this property owner and they are not interested in a LID.
3. Question: What technology is Coburg using to reduce wastewater system construction
costs?
Staff Response: Staff’s understanding is that the City of Coburg will install a Septic Tank
Effluent Pumping (STEP) system for their public collection system. In summary, a STEP
system involves a septic tank at each property to collect/retain solids, with the effluent
(water) from the tank then being pumped to a pressurized pipe system that is then pumped to
the treatment facility. Under Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), it appears that the public
agency is responsible for operation and maintenance of a STEP system. Given the
circumstances for the Anderson Lane request, staff does not believe that a STEP system is a
practical solution for this situation, though it may be appropriate for service in other areas.
4. Question: Are there any hardship waivers available to property owners who find it too
costly to extend the public system at their expense?
Staff Response: Staff contacted the Lane County Sanitarian’s Office, which has delegated
authority from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to administer the OARs that
regulate septic systems. County staff does not have the authority to waive connection
requirements and neither the County nor DEQ provide hardship assistance to property
owners.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the following policy options for each of the
three situations discussed above:
I. Properties within City limits that remain on septic systems because there is no public
system available to them: Recommendation: Policy Option I.a. – retain current policy.
II. Properties with failing septic systems that are outside of City limits and within 300 feet
of a public main: Recommendation: Policy Option II.a. – retain current policy.
III. Coordination with other public construction projects: Recommendation: Policy Option
III.a. – retain current staff practice.
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
¨
¨
¨¨
¨
ÆP
ÆP
21ST ST
GATEWAY ST
R ST
Q ST
G ST
31ST ST19TH ST
15TH ST
10TH ST
14TH ST
PIONEER PKWY
5TH ST
S 42ND ST
42ND ST
HAYDEN BRIDGE RD
YOLANDA AVE
30TH ST
S 28TH ST
69TH ST66TH ST58TH ST
52ND ST
MT VERNON RD
OLYMPIC ST
MARCOLA RD
H A R L O W R D HAYDEN BRIDGE WAY
THURSTON RD
MAIN ST
BLVD
FRAN KLIN
CENTENNIAL BLVD
S 2ND ST
GLENWOOD BLVD
ASPEN ST
S A ST
DAISY STVIRGINIA AVE
MAIN ST
MOHAWK BLVD
S 72ND ST
JASPER RD
PKWY
STRAUB
BELT LINE RD
126
126
126
126
5
5
Wi llam ette
Mill
M c K e n zi e
Mi d d l e
Coast
Cedar
M oha w k
Cre ek
Riv er
River
Ri ve r
R
i
v
e
r
Cre ek
C a m p
R
i
v
e
r
F
o
r
k
Fork
Willamette
W
illa
m
ette
R
a
ce
M
c
K
e
n
zi
e
River
Howard Buford
Dorris Ranch
Living History Farm
Clearwater Park
and
Boat Landing
Eastgate
Woodlands
Lively
Park
and
Swim
Center
Ruff Park
Harvest
Landing
Bob
Artz
Park
Island
Park
Willamalane
Park
Fort
Park
Meadow Park
Pi er ce Par k
West D Street Pa rk
Tyson Park
S 32nd Street
Community
Sports Park
Guy Lee
Park
Page
Park
Volunteer
Park
Thurston
Park
Kelly
Butte
Park
James
Park
Douglas Gardens
Park
Bluebelle
Park
Willamette
Heights
Park
Pride
Park
Royal
Delle
Park
Gamebird
Park
Menlo
Park
Jesse
Maine
Park
Robin
Park
Mill Race
Park
1960
1960
1909
1909
1909
1948
1948
1948
1975 1975
1948
1973
1973
1997
1980
1979
1967
1948
2 0 0 2
2002
1978
1973
1969
1973
1967
1967
1979
1979
1969
2003
1972
1980
1998
1995
1998
2008
1976
1999
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
19601960
1960
1960
1967
2003
2006
2 0 0 3
1999
1992
1994
1989
1960
1969
2007
1991
1966
2001
1992
1967
1969
No bldg*
No bldg*
Counted “in”
outside portion zoned
MDR, <10,000 s.f.
Lot counted
as Annexed
Cherokee Dr L.I.D.
There are no warranties that accompany this product. Users
assume all responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
any error, omission, or positional inaccuracy of this product.
00.250.51 Mi.
Lines >12”
Lines <12”
Wastewater Network
Lots Beyond 300’ of WW Lines <12”
Lots Within 300’ of WW Lines <12”
Lots X-ing/Adjacent to WW Lines <12”
Labeled by Annexation Year
Septic Sites in ESD Inventory UGB
1885 - 18911892 - 19091910 - 19481949 - 19531954 - 19581959 - 19601961 - 19621963 - 19641965 - 19671968 - 19691970 - 19711972 - 19731974 - 19751976 - 19771978 - 19791980 - 19811982 - 19831984 - 19871988 - 19891990 - 19911992 - 19931994 - 19951996 - 19971998 - 19992000 - 20012002 - 20032004 - 20052006 - 20072008 - 2010
YEAR ANNEXED
Te
c
h
n
i
c
al Servi
ce s Division
Public Works Dep
a
r
t
m
e
n
tMar2012
ZONINGCOUNTBUILT*
LDR <10Ksf307284
LDR >10Ksf374350
MDR <10Ksf65
MDR >10Ksf3635
NC55
CC/MUC21
CI43
LMI107
HI43
Other (E,F, PL)52
TOTAL753695
Adjacent to City Limits (w/in 50’ RoW buffer
Total Area: 1006.9 ac**
Number of Lots: 1182
TAXLOTS WITHIN UGB, OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS
Within 300’ of 12” or smaller Wastewater Line
YEAR ANNEXEDCOUNT
19482
19605
19781
197914
20032
TOTAL24
ANNEXED/UNSERVED SITES WITH BUILDINGS*
Beyond 300’ of 12” or smaller Wastewater Line
**Note 2: Acreage includes outer area of lots split by UGB
*Note: Site building status based on most current data (2000/2008); not field checked
YEAR ANNEXEDCOUNT
19094
194824
196017
19675
196913
19721
19736
19765
197910
19802
19911
19922
19971
19981
20011
20031
TOTAL94ANNEXED/UNSERVED SITES WITH BUILDINGS*Within 300’ of 12” or smaller Wastewater Line
YEAR ANNEXEDCOUNT
19094
194826
196023
19675
196913
19721
19736
19765
19781
197924
19802
19911
19922
19971
19981
20011
20033
TOTAL119ALL SITES ANNEXED BUT NOT SERVED, BY YEAR
YEAR ANNEXEDCount
19091
194812
196017
19661
19674
19694
19735
19752
19761
19794
19891
19921
19941
19951
199814
19992
20011
20021
20061
20071
20081
Total76
ANNEXED SITES SERVED, BUT NOT CONNECTED
Intersectng or Adjacent to Wastewater Line (w/in 50’ RoW buffer
SEPTIC SYSTEM INVENTORYAttachment 2
D R A F T
(Attachment 3)
(Attachment 4)
ATTACHMENT 2
ASPEN STPOLTAVA STROWAN AVERAYNER AVE
KELLOGG RD
MENLO
PARK
ANDERSON LN
UGB
5
0150300600 Ft NORTH
Lines >12”
Lines <12”
Wastewater Net
Urban Fringe Lots Within 300’ of WW Lines <12”
(within 50’ RoW buffer)
Lots Adjacent to WW Lines <12”
Septic Sites in ESD Inventory
18
8
5
-
1
8
9
1
18
9
2
-
1
9
0
9
19
1
0
-
1
9
4
8
19
4
9
-
1
9
5
3
19
5
4
-
1
9
5
8
19
5
9
-
1
9
6
0
19
6
1
-
1
9
6
2
19
6
3
-
1
9
6
4
19
6
5
-
1
9
6
7
19
6
8
-
1
9
6
9
19
7
0
-
1
9
7
1
19
7
2
-
1
9
7
3
19
7
4
-
1
9
7
5
19
7
6
-
1
9
7
7
19
7
8
-
1
9
7
9
19
8
0
-
1
9
8
1
19
8
2
-
1
9
8
3
19
8
4
-
1
9
8
7
19
8
8
-
1
9
8
9
19
9
0
-
1
9
9
1
19
9
2
-
1
9
9
3
19
9
4
-
1
9
9
5
19
9
6
-
1
9
9
7
19
9
8
-
1
9
9
9
20
0
0
-
2
0
0
1
20
0
2
-
2
0
0
3
20
0
4
-
2
0
0
5
20
0
6
-
2
0
0
7
20
0
8
-
2
0
1
0
YEAR ANNEXED
Attachment 3 - Anderson Lane Detail
10TH ST
8TH ST
Q ST
QUINAULT ST
R ST
S ST
126
0150300600 Ft NORTH
Lines >12”
Lines <12”
Wastewater Net
Unserved Lots Within 300’ of WW Lines <12”
(within 50’ RoW buffer)
Lots Adjacent to WW Lines <12”
Septic Sites in ESD Inventory
18
8
5
-
1
8
9
1
18
9
2
-
1
9
0
9
19
1
0
-
1
9
4
8
19
4
9
-
1
9
5
3
19
5
4
-
1
9
5
8
19
5
9
-
1
9
6
0
19
6
1
-
1
9
6
2
19
6
3
-
1
9
6
4
19
6
5
-
1
9
6
7
19
6
8
-
1
9
6
9
19
7
0
-
1
9
7
1
19
7
2
-
1
9
7
3
19
7
4
-
1
9
7
5
19
7
6
-
1
9
7
7
19
7
8
-
1
9
7
9
19
8
0
-
1
9
8
1
19
8
2
-
1
9
8
3
19
8
4
-
1
9
8
7
19
8
8
-
1
9
8
9
19
9
0
-
1
9
9
1
19
9
2
-
1
9
9
3
19
9
4
-
1
9
9
5
19
9
6
-
1
9
9
7
19
9
8
-
1
9
9
9
20
0
0
-
2
0
0
1
20
0
2
-
2
0
0
3
20
0
4
-
2
0
0
5
20
0
6
-
2
0
0
7
20
0
8
-
2
0
1
0
YEAR ANNEXED
Attachment 4 - 10th & Q Streets Detail