1991-04-18 Memo, Stubbs Bay Sewer

Home Browse Search

r Stubbs Bay Sawer April 18, 1991 ?a9« 2 of 3 Tho soils map indicates a Icilkenny loam, typically fairly Imeetmeable. It is my opinion that an interim trench dralnfleld system in Ziesmers' front yard likely will have no detrimental overuse, or by the gradual reduction in its capacity due to being in a saasonal parchad watar tabIa situation- My recommendation therefore i» for allowing Mr. Ziesmer to i-1^ system in his front yard (meeting all required lot line and well M^cks, of course), with the Inclusion of an o- erflow hold^gg tank. This will allow some significant portion ol his io“ ?TBe treated, but at peak flow periods when cannot keep up, it would overflow to a holding t^ which wuld then need to be pumped out. This overflow tank should eliminate any concerns the City would have about surface discharges. If Council agrees to this temporary solution, the other question is how long Ziesmers should be allowed to use such an interim system. B) Process to Determine Whether a Sewer Project Should Be Comm<nc#d Area resident Dave Peterson has talked to a few of the Stubbs Bay area residents- His comments are as follows: le The majority of the few he talked to would prefer to have sewer- 2. That sane group generally stated sign a commitment that takes away their right to appeal the assessment- 3. They generally felt that the City should participate in the costs of the project to some degree. Dave suggested that a citixens* co'^i^tee might be able to make a recomendation as to how the Council should proceed and/o present a recommended compromise for Council to consider. Mr. Peterson also questioned vnetnf.r it split the project in order to alio., it to serve the areas most in need of sewer. The City Engineer is looking into this. Per Councilmember Callahan's discussion on fP'il * citix-ns' committee might be charged with the following goals and dttiess