Laserfiche WebLink
388 <br /> October 9,1974 <br /> FIRCREST SEWER CONTRACT <br /> The following memorandum was received from Allen S.Hendricks,City <br /> Attor- <br /> ney: a has <br /> Hucrest Sewer District Request for Sewer Contract for Additional Area eget <br /> Background <br /> 970,the Dirties=Sewer ism contracted with.the Cite f <br /> Bice the c ant T112ecifles2a definite land area t runs to the year 000 <br /> tocthe entry contract. <br /> City passed its new sewer rate <br /> Ordinance m 23]-73,which oc ged the x Subsequent <br /> to <br /> sewer chargee. The particular a allocation o <br /> charges. The allocation uchncharges ex carried <br /> over tocthe public bodies contracting with Cite. But Badding a <br /> rructionchagee o do outside d ae the 50% <br /> surcharge oh 1 <br /> was by ordinance 208. etheibasicrchan inthecharges <br /> for single family residences Se as follows. <br /> • Old Rate New Rate <br /> $2.25 for a -charge .$2.50 for der charge <br /> 1.12 f 508.surcharge .50 for 208 surcharge <br /> 2.25 for cn Lruction charge <br /> $3.37 total <br /> $=total <br /> the case f eircrea Sewer District there was no provision <br /> made vi 1970 or the allocation ofthec charge. ince Bal- <br /> ly the nCity ordinance cannot abridge provisionsofan existing contract, <br /> the Cityisplaced i aaposition of charging$2.50 for the service charge <br /> and$1.25 as the s aurcharge. <br /> ISSUE <br /> The present iseue aro a <br /> du a Se <br /> ew r istri 'c request end <br /> its boundaries on the 197Ocontract. tismy legal ot extend <br /> that ifthe <br /> 70 c be amended iny • <br /> any Way,the City is obligated t in- <br /> sist <br /> sist o contract <br /> othaving the contract amended to the present sewer <br /> rate ordinance. n light of these c sDistricre- <br /> quests <br /> the 1970 c L be amended i any respects but that a <br /> new <br /> cuted,ntr <br /> act with the new rate structure and the new land area be exe- <br /> ohis memorandum is th3osed contract of iircre ,S i.' <br /> District. Thew contract is i accord <br /> d rpresent Cite ordinances, <br /> e, <br /> '17,"t'" <br /> f h `'Lar"`f" 1 y si <br /> dth l- C �s18 ]. ...e-4u lent PP„residential th s. <br /> each <br /> the <br /> custo- <br /> in this here will be approximately 150 residentijust one connection chage of$1150 r a- al customers involved <br /> situ <br /> Rd Le y for t said they had n objec- <br /> tion to Level, <br /> ete tion charge,b they felt the$137.50 con- <br /> nection <br /> - <br /> harge should rbe a charge to theDistrictrather <br /> than to each individual resident connection <br /> area. <br />