Laserfiche WebLink
- Allow properties regardless of geographic location,to connect to the County utility <br /> (W ss stem(Option 2) <br /> This is a radical option. With this alternative, the urban service area would be meaningless. If any <br /> property could connect to the County utility system, there would be no limit on the extension of <br /> water and sewer lines in rural and agricultural areas. From a growth management perspective,that <br /> would sever the relationship between the existence of utility services and the allowance of higher <br /> densities. With centralized water and or sewer service outside of the Urban Service Area, there <br /> would be more justification for land use plan changes to allow higher densities. <br /> From a utility expansion perspective, this option would adversely affect utility system planning, <br /> demand forecasting, and capital improvements programming. This alternative would also result in <br /> higher costs and poorer water quality. <br /> While this alternative would resolve the 66th Avenue issue by allowing residents to connect to <br /> County water, it would expand that allowance to anyone anywhere in the County. That would <br /> effectively Negate the function and benefit of the Urban Service Area. <br /> - Allow properties abutting or within a specified distance of a County installed water <br /> line to connect to the County utility system (Option 3) <br /> This option is a logical extension of the County's current exemptions that allow certain properties <br /> located outside of the USA to connect to the County utility system. Similar to the current allowance <br /> (W for properties outside of but contiguous to the USA boundary to connect to County utilities, this <br /> alternative would recognize that,because a utility line is already in place, adjacent properties could <br /> connect to the line without further expansion of the utility system. <br /> By allowing properties adjacent to existing utility lines to connect to the County water system,this <br /> alternative would resolve the 66th Avenue issue. Because connections would be made to an existing <br /> utility line, this alternative would not result in some of the higher costs and poorer water quality <br /> issues that would occur with Option 2 above. <br /> CONCLUSION <br /> Over the years,the existing County Urban Service Area policies have worked well. Those policies <br /> have been the basis of growth management and utility expansion decisions in the past. As such,the <br /> current USA policies are appropriate to maintain. <br /> To address the 66th Avenue water connection issue,the Board can take a global approach by adopting <br /> Option 2, allowing any property to connect to the County utility system, approach, or it can take a <br /> more narrow Option 3, allowing only properties adjacent to an existing utility line to connect, <br /> approach. As referenced above, Option 2 is more problematic, since it will impact growth <br /> management, affect utility planning,increase utility costs,and result in poor water quality. For those <br /> reasons, Option 2 should not be selected. <br /> FACommunity Development\Users\CDADMEVRAGENDA\2013\WaterconnectionoutsideUSA 071613.doc 5 167 <br />