Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19691125 . . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fall..... C.f.HO(:!([le.'.&l.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning November 25, 1969 Meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Robin Molny with Francis Whitaker, Dale Mars, Norm Clasen at 5:10 p.m. Whitaker made a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting as pre'- pared and mailed by the Secretary. Seconded by Mars. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - SEWER STUDY Vice Chairman Molny opened the public hearing on the Regional Sewer Feasibility Study prepared by Parker and Associates for consideration of . including in the Master Plan. Vice Chairman Molny - The City Council has requested the Planning and Zoning Commission consider this report which is entitled "Feasibility Study for Sewage Collection and Treatment - Upper Roaring Fork Valley - September, 1969". This study was ordered by the City Council and County Commissioners for a sewer system located primarily in the County. The reason we are taking it up here is because any amendment to the Master Plan has to originate here, then to the City Council, then considered by the County P & Z and then by the County Commissioners. The Master Plan is amended on that basis. Mr. Roberts of Parker and Associates is here to make a presentation. I think we can start off and that would be the best way Mr. Roberts, so that people here who are unfamiliar with the whys and wherefores of the plan can get the contents of it. Were you able to get anything in the way pf a map? Mr. Roberts - I have brought with me individual maps of exhibit 3 in the plar (Copie~ were passed out to people present.) Vice Chairman Molny - I will say that two weeks ago, we had a study session, City P & Z at which Mr. Roberts made a presentation, similar to the one which he will make now. Mr. Roberts - I don't know how much of the report to try and present Mr. Molny, should I just read the summary? Vice Chairman Molny - If you could make a general comment as to the concept of the plan, why it is and what it is and we'll get started that way. Mr. Roberts -Mr. Molny has already said that we were hired by the combinat- ion of the County Commissioners and City Council. . We are looking at a regional concept of sewage treatment, and collection for the entire Upper Roaring Fork Valley. We took a look at the entire Roaring Fork Valley all the way from Glenwood Springs on up and then limited our study to that portion of the Upper Roaring Fork Valley which is in Pitkin County. As a regional concept we would think that a plant in Glen,vood Springs could handle the Upper Roaring Fork River up to Carbondale; at Carbondale another plant could handle the Crystal River drainage up the Roaring Fork up to Basalt; a plant at Basalt could handle the Frying Pan River drainage plus the Roaring Fork up to the Narrows. This is where we picked the treatment plant site, not trying to pinpoint a site, but we believe it should be somewhere in the Narrows just below Gerbaz-Aspen area. In limiting our study then to the area of the valley above Gerbaz-Aspen area going all the way up, we found that a vast majority of the acerage could be developed. Then we went into it again with another assumption, that the mountain sides would not be developed, or if they were, it would be sparsely developed. - 1 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves n~"" C.r.HJECKH 8.8.a t. co. Reg., P & Z, 11/25/69, continued. This then left us with a total of about 11,700 acres that CQuld be developed into residential or high commercial area. I think the best thing I can do is to read our summary of findings. I think this would answer a lot of' your questions or at least start your questions. "The economical limit for a regional sewage collection and treatment system is the entire Upper Roaring Fork River Valley upstream from the Narrows just north of the Gerbaz-Aspen area. Three methods of creating a regional sewer authority have been mentioned with the creation of a new sanitation district acting as the sole authority for sewage collection and treatment under agreement between sanitation districts highly recommended. The trunk sewers should be designed for the ultimate population of the regiol which is estimated to be 88,000 people. The sewage treatment facilities based on a twenty (20) year design, should consist of an initial plant to handle 24,000 people in 1970, expanded to 1980 to handle 48,000 people and capable of handling 63,000 people by 1989." This is what we are expecting the population of the valley to be in 20 years from now is 63,000 people. "The estimated cost of the entire project is $8,746,000 in 1970 and $600,000 in 1980. The cost breakdown is as follows: ' 1970 Trunks and sewage treatment Laterals to serve potential users outside of existing sanitation districts Mains and laterals already proposed within existing sanitation districts Outstanding sewer bonds.of existing sanitation districts 1980 expansion of sewage treatment plant ~ $3,000,000.00 1,746,000.00 ").,339,000.00 TOTAL 2,670,000.00 600,000.00 9,346,000.00 In addition to the construction costs stated in the paragraph above, we have allowed for yearly operational costs varying from $12,000.00 in 1970 to $116,000.00 in 1989 and for installing approximately 30,000 lineal feet of laterals per year to service new users at a cost of some $270,000.00 per yea' We anticipate a federal grant of $840,000.00 in 1970 and another of $165,000 in 1980 to help finance the improvements. The remaining monies will come from an $8,000,000.00 sewer bond issue with a life of twenty years passed in 1970 and an additional bond issue of $400,000.00 with a ten year life passed in 1980. The entire project is feasible based on revenues derived from average tap privilege fees of $600.00 each, average monthly service charges of $7.00 and a tax levy of six mills for twenty years. The feasibility of the projec is enhanced by the rapid growth of population and also the tax base of the region. We believe that our report has been conservative in the number of - 2 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 'OR" '.0 C. r. "O~L!(~l ft. 8. a t. co. Reg., P & Z, 11/25/69, continued. new users added per year and in the growth of tax evaluation for the region. We have assumed that new users will be added at the rate of 600 per year between 1970 and 1980 and 510 per year from 1980 through 1989. We have assumed an average annual growth in tax valuation of $3,000,000.00. Many circumstances could contribute to less monies needed and, therefore, lower rates established for any or all three of the revenue items. Some of these contributing factors would be lower construction costs than those estimated, higher federal grants, greater growth in tax valuation, ability to use the outstanding bonds of the existing districts which have a lower rate than the new bond used to refinance these bonds, and an increase in prepayment of tap fees. We have purposely tended to be conservative in our estimates of cost and revenue in order to present the worst possible combination of factors regarding financing of the project. In spite'of this, the project appears to be feasible." ' ., Since this report was written, we understand the County ta~ reappraisal has come through and instead wenow have a 40 million dollar tax base, is that correct. - $38 million Mr. Roberts - which means that already these figures could be lower, much lower than what we have predicted for either of the three, the combination of any of the three items. The tap privilege fee of $600, the six mill levy or the $7.00 a month service charge. Vice Chairman Molny - Does anybody have any questions from the floor? <' Steve Murphy - Your basis for population projections? Mr. Roberts - Basis for population projections were electric meter accounts, water users in the City. We have studied the Aspen Metro Sanitation Report, the Aspen Area General Plan, Water supply and Development Feasibility Study by Dale Rea, we had checked with the Ski Corporations, ran an actual house count on the valley outside the corporate limits of the City of Aspen. We thought we had enough information on the City of Aspen to predict its population. In order to predict the rest of the valley, we did run an actual house count. King Woodward - I noticed in the feasibility study, then all of a sudden your projections start with the year 1970 for a large amount of money and we right now have a metropolitan sanitation district that isn't even finished yet. So projections for 1970 is a little early. Mr. Roberts - We picked the year 1970 strictly as the basis for a start of some 20 year period. In, working out an amortization table of cost and so forth, you have to pick some year to start with. We used 1970 because we believe this would give us a truer picture of population and also cost. - 3 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves '0'l0l': C.F,HOrC!([tl.'.&l.CO. Reg., P & Z, 11/25/69, continued. Roy Vroom - Is the growth necessary for this additional facility below the present Metro site projected to be at a certain point that that plant will be required finally in 1970, is that what your planning for. Mr. Roberts - I am not sure that I got your question correctly. Your askin will the plant be necessary by 1970. The plant could not be ready by 1970. We have figured it to be an 18 month construction period for plant and trunk sewer. Roy Vroom - In other words, construction begins somewhere in 1970. Mr. Roberts - We used that as a base year, we are not saying that construct ion would or would not start in 1970. Roy Vroom - When would ,the plant be required by your plan. Mr. Roberts - I think it will be required somewhere shortly after 1970 un- less the others are all expanding. We do know that Snowmass at Aspen has capacity for 4,000 people and our projections show that and based on their figures their going to have 4,000 people this winter. Roy Vroom - Are you educating that the growth that the present plants will serve would be such that a new plant would be required within a couple of years down by the Gerbaz area. Mr. Roberts - Well, let me try to answer your question in this vain then. Did you look at the exhibit that you have, we found that the Aspen Metro Plant located at the hog pasture leaves some 7 or 8 miles of developable valley wide open so that if any growth was to take place in this area, I me its going to takeplace in a rather hap hazard fashion. Also, of course, th Aspen Metro Plant does not pick up Snowmass at Aspen, they have a separate small facility up there. If no expansion of present facilities were made, then yes, something should be done as soon as 1970. Something should be started as soon as 1910. Roy Vroom - I understand that both Snowmass and Metro have in their studies or plans provision for expansion. Mr. Roberts- Yes they do. That still leaves this 8 mile of valley with no facility. Roy Vroom - You feel that the growth that will require a plant below the present metro facilities. Mr. Roberts - As I said in the report, I wouldn't try to predict it, as I said in the report that existence of this sewer will do one major thing. It will let the growth take a natural course. If the facilities are availalbe, the growth in the area will take a natural course. It won't be limited to just those areas where a sewer happens to exist today. Roy Vroom - Do you think this will tend to facilitate growth? Mr. Roberts - I don't thiru{ the sewer will, Let me answer it more complete I don't think a sewer system will foster' new growth. I think what it is going to do is to allow the growth that is going to take place to go howevE and wherever it may want to. Thats why I pointed out in this report that ,1 - 4 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~ c. r. Ifot~~n ~.~. Il l. co. Reg., P & Z, 11/25/69, continued. zoning is important and something that you really want in the valley. But the mirror fact that the sewer system is there, is not going to mean that area is a point of growth. If this were in the Denver area where we havea bedroom community type thing, then I would say putting a sewer system in'one place or another that that would be the area that would grow. But in the Aspen area where the growth is strictly based on tourism, the fact that sewer is there dosen' t mean its going to make tourists come' to Aspen. The tourists are going to want to come to Aspen and thats what is fostering the growth. If the sewer system is put in, it'll just mean a much more orderly development. Dwight Shellman - This area below the hog pasture site that will be served by the new plant, do I understand correctly that your first stage of the plant will have a capacity to serve some and equivalent of population of 24,000 people. Mr. Roberts - That is correct, Mr. Shellman Dwight Shellman - And they will be located in the area below the present hog pasture? Mr. Roberts - Not necessarily. We were predicting this on the fact, 'that if the present central treatment plant were put in, there would be no reason to expand the Aspen Metro Plant, the Aspen City Plant or the Snowmass at Aspen sewage treatment plant. So that any of their growth that they . couldn't handle with their plant would be by-passed and come to the new' central treatment plant. Dwight Shellman - What kind of impact would you see, or what kine of necessar: changes would you see in density below the hog pasture site inorder to support a proposed plant. ~ Mr. Roberts - All on its own? Dwight Shellman - Yes Mr. Roberts - It wasn't broken down ional study and thats what we made. in total of the entire valley. this way. We were asked to make a reg- In other words, we looked at population Dwight Shellman - Let me ask you this question. The presently constructed plants have a given treatment of capacity. Mr. Roberts - That is correct. Dwight Shellman - What is that capacity? Mr. Roberts - 4,000 in Snowmass, 7,000 I believe in the new plant and 6,000 in the existing city sanitation plant. Dwight Shellman - 17,000 in population could be handled by the existing plants. Mr. Roberts - That is correct. Dwight Shellman - and you would anticipate the growth of an additional 24,000. - 5 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 'Q~~!I c. r. H~rC!{[lll. II. It l. C~. Reg., P & Z, 11/25/69, continued. Mr. Roberts - Over the next 10 year period. Dwight Shellman - and part of that growth would be in the area that is presently below the existing hog pasture site. Mr. Roberts - This is very possible. Dwight Shellman - Now, has the valley below lets say the city limits of Aspen if it were zoned 2 acre zoning would you have enough people in the valley to make this new plant economically feasible. Mr. Roberts - Yes. In the entire valley, yes. " Dwight Shellman - From Aspen to the plant. Mr. Roberts - Our population density that we came up with, I believe is 7.98 people per acre. I may be wrong on that, lets not trust my memory. Thats everybody in the valley. I know I did make a comparison of Aspen Metro and the up-dating of the Aspen Area Metro Report. Our average density is 7.59 people per acre. For comparison purposes the Leo Daly land use ,report predicted a saturation population density of 5.40 and the Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District estimated 11.22 people per acre. Dwight Shellman - That is utilizing all the land to carryall the people that could be carried with the Master Plan zoning is that correct. Mr. Roberts - This is our feeling with one exception. We have imposed one additional condition on this and that is once the visitor population reaches 60,000 in this Upper Roaring Fork Valley area that just the fact that over-crowding is enough to stop the tremendous growth of tourists that you have. There is a negative influencing factor here. Once an area gets too crowded, people are going to go elsewhere. Dwight Shellman - In ord~r to arrive at the average per acre density, you have to arrive at different facts. Mr. Roberts - That is correct. We used 15 study areas. Dwight Shellman - How man of the study areas were incorporated in this area below the existing metropolitan sanitation plant. Mr. Roberts - Seven, although one of the others is the Red Mountain area which is not included in Aspen Metro although it should be picked up by the Metro Dwight Shellman - How man of these six study areas are on the valley floor between the Metro plant and the new plant. Mr. Roberts - Well as a good example this would be Woody Creek. That is certainly on the valley floor and exists today without a sewer system. Dwight Shellman - Are all six of the study areas within what you call the Roaring Fork Valley. Mr. Roberts - Yes. I believe our study we limited ourselves to all lands flatter than 40 feet per 100 feet. - 6 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , 100 Leaves rM.." C. r. 1l~[Cl(tl 8. 8. " l. CO. Reg., P & Z, 11/25/69, continued. Dwight Shellman - So if you give me the average density utilized for six study areas Mr. Roberts - For each of the six? Dwight Shellman - Yes Mr. Roberts - I don't believe I can. In looking at the region as a whole Dwight Shellman - You had to use some figure to weigh those study areas. Mr. Roberts - Yes, we used our saturation population divided by the 11,760 acres that we thought were developable. Dwight Shellman - In those six study areas. Mr. Roberts - No, in the entire valley. Remember this is a regional plan now. Dwight Shellman - I am aware of that, but I am still trying to find out where you got the equivalent population maximum equivalent population figure for the area below the existing Metro plant. Mr. Roberts - Oh, these are from actual house count, for existing population and this is an educated guess how much to put into residential'- 15,000. acre residential, 30,000 acre residential, 40,,000 acre residential and multiple homes etc. I think you ought to have a copy of the report. I think it is ptetty detailed. I really think you should have a copy. Dwight Shellman - I have a copy of the report, I still can't. Do you have your work sheets, for evaluating population of that area, or six areas below the or available. Mr. Roberts - With me? I think we would have them in the office. Dwight Shellman - Would there be a chance of getting that information at some point. Vice Chairman Molny - I would think Mr. Roberts would have to answer that question. I would assume they would be willing to make those sheets avail- able, because that is the base under which the whole system, the size of the whole system is determined. Mr. Roberts - This all cost us a lot of money, frankly, if you want us to start reproducing, you understand. We were hired to submit a report. But if Mr. Shellman wants to visit our office, I will be happy to let you look at some of these. Dwight Shellman - Well I don't want to make it any harder than possible. I am trying to get a picture of what density of that area is projected'to be ultimately and over a time. Mr. Roberts - Well we do have the area broken do,m as to totals or acres in population. And this was on page 5-11 (a) of the report. In other words, we took each one of these areas and we said for instance there will be total number of acres of R-15, so many in R-30 and so many in R-40, so many in low density acres and ~o much in non-populated acres. That gave us a tota RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves nl~"" c.,. I<()[c~n ~. ,. It l. C~. Reg., P & Z, 11/25/69, continued. acerage of population for that study area. How much further do you want to go. Dwight Shellman - I want to find out what the total acre density assumption were for those study areas. Mr. Roberts - The per acre density was determined from using the high density, the R-15, R-30, R-40 and low density andnon-populated acreage figures. Dwight Shellman - Alright, then what you would take is every'piece of developable land and assume that is going' to be developed to its maximum capacity, is that correct. Mr. Roberts - Using these' perimeters. If we wanted to we could say that the entire 11,760 would be all in high rise hotel ?partments and so forth. We could come up with an ast'ronomical figure. Dwight Shellman - I understand you didnot do that. Now what total p9pulation would be in that area in the six areas of your projections. Mr. Roberts - Below Aspen Metro, what about Snowmass? Dwight Shellman - I am talking about below Aspen Metro Mr. Roberts - Including Snowmass or excluding Snowmass? Dwight Shellman - I assume you excluded Snowmass in the six study areas. Mr. Roberts - No, we haven't. Snowmass is actually in the Brush Creek area. -' Dwight Shellman - Alright how about the five remaining study areas. Mr. Roberts - Alright lets go right from the last one. Gerbaz-Aspen area we have a saturation population of 3497. From the main valley north side between Woody Creek and Gerbaz-Aspen 3707, from the main valley south side between Brush Creek and Gerbaz-Aspen 1730, Woody Creek 3116, Brush Creek which includes Snowmass-at-Aspen 25,036 and I believe the main valley north side Woody Creek 3704 and the main valley south side of Brush Creek 486. Now part of the Aspen City Roaring Fork east Red Mountain and Hunter Creek would have to go into this also. Although this lies above the Aspen Metro system, although was not included in it. Raymond Turner - I am an attorney, I am representing the present sanitation districts. We do not have a question of this witness at this time but would like to make some comments about the report we would liketo present. Vice Chairman Molny - Mr. Kerr I would be interested to know if there is any information you would want relative to the project you are involved in. Mr. Kerr - Not at this time. William Dunaway - Could I ask if the report took into account the proposed development at Wildcat and their proposed plant there. Mr. Roberts - No, this came after the report. The only thing I have seen on this report is the newspaper article and it does look like most of their draina2e ba~i" i~ ovp:r t.hp (li"inp ,qnn t.1nll1rl n,qup f-n on ;nrn t-hn ~nnl.nn.!lC::C RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~c,r."OH~[tll.8_lll.C~. Reg., P & Z, 11/25/69, continued. Creek itself which would be down beyond this area we are talking about. I said most of it, now some of that area is included in this particular watershed, we don't know how much. William Dunaway - They have their own plant planned anyway. Mr. Roberts - We don't know, we don't know if they have a one plant system or two or if they intend to pump sewage, we have no idea. Vice Chairman Molny - Mr. Kerr I believe did say earlier - Yes, we will have our own system for Wildcat. Mr. Roberts - AmI correct that would be in the Snowmass Creek watershed then - Yes Lamont Kinkade - County Sanitarian - One of the things that perhaps should be considered at this time and that is with your water pollution problem that we are facing both up and down the canyon all regulations are going to have to be strictly enforced in the future. This can well mean there will be a number of areas without the use of a system like this which will not be feasible site locations. Places in which small systems just will not work, for reasons of high water table, poor perclaution rates whatever. A system like this would be the answer for areas l~ke this. As of the first of the year, all these regulations are going to be strictly adhered to. This would tend to alleviate this problem. Vice Chairman Molny - An example of that would be Brush Creek village, I believe. Chuck Fothergill - I would just like to ask Mr. Roberts what the projected initial operating costs ,of the plant would be for a regional plant. Mr. Roberts - The figure of $12,000 which we used in 1970 actually was to hire a man ahead of time, this was not to actually operate the plant. I think the best place to get that would be the table, we have the operating costs Mr. Fothergill, the first real one that we could use outside of the $12,000 figure which is hiring someone ahead of time and use him during construction just to get used to the system, is $58,000 in 1971. Dale Mars - In getting back, some questions were asked about how the new proposed regional plant would affect the growth. I'll read on Page 5-7 _ here. "One fact that we are sure of is that when sewers become available for all of the land within the Upper Roaring Fork Valley the growth in permanent residents will accelerate. There is a definite need in the region for lmv to middle income housing." So the fact is that if the plant was in j will help speed up growth. Mr. Roberts - This willhelp in permanent housing. The idea behind this is that you need a certain number of service people. You have to have some- one to build these places and to clean them and operate them etc, and this middle and low income housing would be for service workers. Dale Mars - Then on Page 4-2 Economic Advantage. "There is a spiralling growth rate and the public derives many benefits. If a land use plan for the region exists and zoning is fairly enforced, not only will the region develop, but it will se the best llse of its prime resource, the land." I _ 0 _ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves '()II" '! c." ..otC~~l R. 8. a l. t~. Reg., P & Z, 11/25/69, continued. just wanted to bring that up. Mr. Roberts - This is under regional concept right. Dale Mars - Yes. Mr. Roberts - I would just like to make one statement that I probably should have made. With one billing and collecting authority and administrative office and authority of all the sewer and treatment in the valley, under this system here your going to have one rate established on everybody. There will be one tax levy, one tap rate and one monthly service charge depending on the type of user, which would be true anywhere in the valley instead of this present 'set up where you might have one area paying twice as much as another. William Dunaway - Legally what steps wouLd have to be taken, a new district formed and then contract with the old districts. Mr. Roberts - That is the method that we recommended, yes. William Dunaway - Is there any other method. Mr. Roberts - Yes, the County I could read the three methods to you. One would be a new sanitation district set up withich wouldn't contract with the others but would build another plant, its trunk sewers and' so forth just adding to the ills of the valley as far ,as we are concerned. The second method was to create a new sanitation distirct which would contract with the others assume all their debts, repayment of all their debts and by contract become the sole authority and collection authority and everything else concerned with sewage treatment in the valley. The third method would be for the County Commissioners to build the sanitation treatment plant and trunk sewers and contract with the existing sanitation districts for transportation of raw sewage and treatment of same. Francis Whitaker - Mr. Roberts in your letter accompanying letter of your report you state, "The best estimate we can make of the time element to create a regional sewer system undEr an RSA in the Aspen area is some 3 to 4 years in the future." And it goes on depending upon the passage of con- stitutional amendments the passage of enabling legislation and refers to gentlemen's agreements by the County. I just wonder if this proposed start of construction in 1970 isn't really questionable as to whether it is on a proper legal basis. Mr. Roberts - The method we recommended really had nothing to do with RSA at the time this report was written because the enabling legislation of RSA to actively operate a facility such as this does not exist today. Norm Clasen - In talking about this density thing and this arbitrary line that has been drawn at the hog pasture site and below, just rough thinking after reading that report and trying to second guess your figures, I sort .. of gather that your talking about, based on present zoning and an educated guess of R-15, R-30, R-40 and what not is concerned, that your looking at probable density in that lower area of around 15,000 people - 10,000 or 15,000 people is that correct. Mr. Roberts - I can't answer that unless I add up my own figures here. - 10 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ,OOl" " c." I<O~C~EL 8. 8. Il l. ~O. Reg., P & Z, 11/25/69, continued. Norm Clasen - Francis and I just went over it. It added up to about 10,000. I think 10 is about what you figured and I think probably a maximum over and above that would be about 15. It appears to me that what weare talking about here is your talking about putting a system in down in the Narrows that would alleviate the over flow or growth expansion growth of the present systems and that would feed into this plant. In other words, these systems would not grow anymore and eventually some of them would even become obsolete. Mr. Roberts - That would be correct. Norm Clasen - So in essence they simply fade out and it all goes down Mr. Roberts - This would have to be a determination made after this whole thing of course was crea~ed, constructed and would be operating. The authorities involved would have to make a decision, at what time should be fazed out the existing treatment plants or add existing treatment plant, they may want one existing treatment plant for the whole 20 year period. Norm Clasen - So your predicting this plant be built on a cooperative level right off the bat that these plants all agree to begin to faze-out in time. Mr. Roberts - Because there would be some savings involved to their own customers their own people, within each one of the regions of ~he exist~ng sanitation districts. Norm Clasen - Now, let me just go a step further. We are looking at the heaviest density above the hog pasture. Mr. Roberts - The two highest density areas that"we can foresee in the next 20 years is going to be the City of Aspen and its immediate suburbs and Snowmass at Aspen which is going definitely into high density population condominiums, hotels, mo~els, lodges and so forth. Norm Clasen - Do they not have expansion facilities up to approximately 15 or 16,000 people, Snowmass. Mr. Roberts - Snowmass at Aspen has plans to double the size of their present plant and then also construct another 1 million gallon plant which would, take care of 8,000 or 10,000 people. Norm Clasen - What seems to bother me here is the fact that we are basing a lot of things on a lot of things like people cooperating and the fact that faxing out some of our systems and the fact remains that these facilities can be expanded. Is that not correct, these present systems can be expanded. Mr. Roberts - That is correct. Norm Clasen - And they can handle approximately 60,000 to 70,000 people, this is Snowmass M~. Roberts - I have not seen the plan, Metro Plan, but their preliminary report was based on 47,700 I think. Norm Clasen - Alright 47,000 people. Can these plants be expanded to such a degree that the water that they put back in the stream is as clean if not cleaner than vlhen it went in. Is it physically possible totake these RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves '01104 '! C. r. H~fc~n.~. 8. II t. (.1. Reg., P & Z, 11/25/69, continued. existing plants and make them perfect. Mr. Roberts - The cost would be almost prohibitive. From an engineering standpoint or scientific standpoint, yes, it can be done. Norm Clasen - We we're going to be, I don't know how long it would take to faze these plants out but we're going to have a lot of money in these plants right now and we're talking about 20 years to expand this system up to 88,000 people. As I say again If I miss my guess only 15,000 of those are presently below the hog pasture and I am wondering what justification, I don't think you have talked about savings yet and I don't think you have talked about type of plant and I would like to know what justification there is for putting in a 9 million dollar system when we have systems that are here that can be expanded and as you say whatever costs can be made perfect. Mr. Roberts - Maybe what I ought to do is read the regional concept section briefly. There is more involved than just money, of course. "There is a growing understanding in this nation that if we are to stop stream pollution we must plan, P?erate and manage waste disposal'on a regional basis; that in short, we must plan sewage disposal on a watershed level. Many reasons supporting thlli concept have been stated in design reports and government publications. We would like to present the more cogent of these reasons. The facts that are most easily understood and appreciated by the public deal with savings in cost due to economy of siie. There are definite savings to the users of a sewage system in having one largE plant of say 10,000,000 gallons per day capacity rather than ten or twenty plants serving the same area and varying in size from 100,000 to 1,000,000 gallons per day capacity, both in construction cost and in operating cost. . Construction Cost - It is estimated that to construct a modern 10,000,000 gallon per day sewage treatment plant would cost $1.30 per gallon of capacity'while a 100,000 zallon per day plant would cost approximately $0.80 per gallon to build." I'm not going to go on, I am just going to hit thehigh lights. "Operation Cost - The operating cost of a 10,000,00.0 gallon per day sewage treatment plant would be about $40.00 per 1,000,000 gallons of sewage treated while a 100,000 gallon per day plant will show a cost of approximately $120.00 per 1,000,000 gallons of treated sewage." "All Costs - It has been proven time and again that small se,.mge treatment facilities are expensive to operate, rapidly become obsolete and rarely provide a long range solution to the problem of pollution abatement. As an argument aeainst those who claim a regional system is too costly to install, think of the property owner who invests first in a septic tank installation, secodly in a small community system and finally in a large regional system, as the area develops; triple investment, the first two of which would not have been necessary if the initial investment had been made in the regional system. Economic Advantage"- I believe Mr. Mars has covered this already. "Level of Service - Large size engenders a high level of public servj.ce. In our case of one large system serving the Upper Valley versus a series of small systems, imagine the differences in operation with one billing office, onc full time manager, one sewage treatment superintendent and one se,ver . . RECORD Of PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ,o~"" C. f. "OH~n 9. 8. It t. C.,. Reg., P & Z, 11/25/69, continued. to perfonn the same functions. In the first place, the large system would have adequate revenues to pay salaries that would attract a top level of key personnel who would be highly trained in their particular field, sincerely interested in their career jobs and conscientious enough to give a good ' level of service. A comparison with the small system complex would show a large number of part-time employees not dependent upon their part-time jobs for a living. The conscientious ones would give good service but to be realistic, there is little likelihood of all or even most of these part- time people to be highly trained in their particular field or of having any skill or experience. Because of part-time positions, another major deterrant to good service would be the constant changing of personnel throughout the small system complexes. It is a proven fact that there is a much greater labor turnover in part-time versus full time positions. In a large system with a full time maintenance crew and three shift operation of the treatment plant, the householder should be able to call, report a problem such as a sewer stoppage and get service within a maximum time limit of ten or twelve hours and a normal time limit of eight hours. In a small system, the house- holder has to wait until the part-time maintenance man reports for work and if he happens to be gone on vacation the service is very poor. A time limit of twenty-four to forty-eight hours is common in a small system. Safeguard against Pollution - A fact little understood by the genera1public but one of grave concern to public officials involved in pollution abatement is that a regional sewage collection and treatment plant system assures much better safeguards against stream pollution than a hodgepodge of small systems. covering the same service area. The reason being that the responsibility for proper treatment and sewer maintenance is pinpointed on one system manager and one sewage treatment superintendent. These men are responsible for the level of service and there can be no dodging of their responsibility. If just one of the ten or twenty small small plants in our hypothetical case is poorly operated and maintained and to be factual with part-time operators that is frequently happens, then the streams in the region will still be polluted even though the treatment facilities exist and the residents have paid for these facilitie~. . Labor Problem - There is a growing concern on the part of public officials that we need more highly trained and skilled sewage treatment operators; they know that a great shortage of this skilled category of man power exists. There is a much better chance of finding three or four of these men for one large system rather than 20 of them for the complex of small plants. The best designed and constructed sewage facilities are'almost worthless if they are not properly operated and maintained." Thats the basic reasons, not all of them have to do with money. Roy Vroom - Are you saying that conceivably there would be less pollution in the Roaring Fork with all the sewage being treated by one plant and the affluent coming in at that point as opposed to 2 or 3 plants Metro, Aspen and Snowmass plants. Dividing that pollution at three different points. Mr. Roberts - I am saying there will be no more pollution and the fact of it is since we state better operation and maintenance weexpect less. Roy Vroom - Why do you feel there will be better operation with one plant at Gerbaz as opposed to - 13 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOllo,j': e.', HOrC~[t 8. 9. Il l. CO. Reg., P & Z, 11/25/69, continued. Mr. Roberts - Three shift operation, enough money to have 3 shifts. Operator on duty 24 hours a day. Roy Vroom - Do you think there is enough water in the Roaring Fork to absorb the affluent that would corne out of one plant. Mr. Roberts - If there is enough to absorb 10 or the affluent from your 3 plants or 10 or 20 plants, there is enough for one, yes. Roy Vroom - But your putting it into the Roaring Fork at one point, rather than spreading it out. Wouldn't there be less pollution by ~preading it out. Mr. Roberts - Are you back to the old thought of self stream purification. Roy Vroom - I am not back,to any old thought at all. I was just asking a simple question. Vice Chairman Molny - Your talking about dilution. Mr. Roberts - Dilution in my mind is one of the poorest ways to treat sewage that I know. As a good example of that if I may, I happen to come from the Cleveland area which is on Lake Erie. For the great lakes area, look at the pollution problem we've got. 10 million to one, 20 million to one and now they are very concerned about Lake Erie in a short time spent of about 30 years. Dilution as I say in my mind and in most peoples minds is a yery poor way to treat sewage. Vice Chairman Molny - We spoke about this at the study session and asked Mr. Roberts about tertiary treatment and he pointed out that the two of the two major costs namely the lines and the plant, the plant was the lessor of the two costs. For an additional 20% land investment which I think was some $160,000 to $180,000. Mr. Roberts - More than 20%. Vice Chairman Molny - Okay, you can install tertiary treatment and I won't go into laymans language of what tertiary treatment is but you would effect- ively be putting better water better affluent into .the stream than the stream itself . Joe Ed.vards - I am speaking now in an individual capacity. As an individual I think you avoided Mr. Vroom's question and I would like him to answer it. The questionwas, assuming that affluent of the same quality in all plants would it not be better to put it in at three separate points than to dump it all into one. Assuming equal quality of affluent. Answer yes or no. Mr. Roberts - I won't be able to say yes or no to your question unless I know exactly where it was being built. Joe Edwards - Alright let me give you three points. One point at the present SnOWlllass plant, second point at the present Metro plant, third point a small plant to be put in where you propose in time. Mr. Roberts - Alright lets look at this as an assumption. Number one if there is any pollution coming out of Sno,vrnass at Aspen, its polluting most of Brush Creek. - 14 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ,o~"., c. r, ~~t:~rl 8. .. & l. C.,. Reg., P & Z, 11/25/69, continued. Joe Edwards - I asked for'a yes or no answer. Mr. Roberts - I am sorry sir, but I don't intend to answer you yes or no. , If you want me to answer you, I will try to. If you want a yes or no answer your not going to get it. Joe Edwards - It s a theoretical question and can be answered yes or no. Mr. Roberts - And I'm giving you a theoretical answer because the whole thing is involved. You are polluting Brush Creek with the present Snowmass plan~ if there is any pollution coming out of it. Joe Edwards - It. 9.9 percent BOD. Mr. Roberts - As of what date. What about when you have your winter population and 4,000 visitors what then. Mr. Froelich - March the 15th last year. Mr. Roberts - Alright I am still ging to go back to the answer to the question I was going to try and answer. If there is any pollution coming out of any of these individual treatment plants then you have polluted Brush Creek, Aspen Metro has polluted Upper Roaring Fork from the hog pasture all the way down. If our plant is put in, none of that pollution the part that would be polluted would be the area in the Narrows which has almost no population.. That: the best answer I can give you. Dwight Shellman - Now wait a minute, in your plan you have everyone of these other plants in operation anyway. Mr. Roberts - Thats correct. ~ Mr,'Roberts As long as the authorities want them to keep running but there isn't much chance of. overloading under this regional system Dwight Shellman - There isn't much chance of over-loading them under present plant is there either if we make the enlargement occur as scheduled. Mr. Roberts - If they occur as scheduled, probably not. Dwight Shellman - But you still have under your program still have the same number of plants unless some one prematurly abandons the capital investment of one do you not. Mr. Roberts - As I said, I cannot answer for the authorities. I myself prefer to see the plants abandoned just as quickly as possible, because I do believe the costs would be greater operating the small plants versus a larger plant.' Dwight Shellman - Okay, but that isn't part of the recommendation at this point is it. Mr. Roberts - I have no way put this into this report at all. Dwight Shellman - Mr. Roberts isn't it true that the only real thing this recommendation does is put another sewer plant at Gerbazdale. Mr. Roberts - No, it does much more than that. It puts the tax burden and the monthly service charge and whatever w~~ you want to call it on everybody in the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves '00"" c. r. I<.~~(!(n_ e. ~_ & l. (;~. Reg. P & Z, 11/25/69, continued. valley and uses almost 9,0% of the tax base of the County to finance it. Everybody is paying the same rate and there should as I said be less pollut- ion than under the other system. Dwight Shellman - Isn't that an oversimplification to pass the tax burden of I the development of an additional sewer plant to the higher tax base for the lower part of the County. Mr. Roberts - I don't think so. Dwight Shellman - Dosen't the more developed part of the County have a higher assessed valuation Mr. Roberts - Ohyes, it has a higher assessed valuation, yes. Dwight Shellman - Would that not carry a greater portion of the expense for putting in this facility. Mr. Roberts - Not for the individual user. Dwight Shellman - Isn't the higher assessed valuation carrying a greater portion of the expense of the facility. Mr. Roberts - Not per individual user or property owner. . Dwight Shellman - Essentially are you not utilizing the high tax base in the upper end of the valley to finance a construction of a plant to serve relatively an uninhabited area. Mr. Roberts - No., Fork Valley. This plant is going to serve the entire Upper Roaring "' Dwight Shellman - Essentially are you not using the higher tax base of the Upper part of the valley to finance the construction of a plant in a relativl, uninhabited area of the lower part of the valley. Mr. Roberts - To put a treatment plant in. Dwight Shellman - Finance the construction of a plant in the lower part of the valley. Mr. Roberts - The plant is being put in to serve the entire Upper Roaring Fork Valley not the uninhabited portion. Dwight Shellman - Essentially aren't you using the upper part, the higher tax valuation of the upper part of the valley to finance the construction of the other plant. Mr. Roberts - Yes. Vice Chairman Molny - I would like to point out that this is the first of fou public hearings and my personal taste is that we stay with general concepts in our meeting. Francis Whitaker - In your co~ts you have 3 million dollars in 1970 for the -16- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 'OII"'~ t.'. HO!~Ul 8. ~. " l. t~. Reg., P & Z, 11/25/69, continued. trunks and sewage treatment. I don't know what proportion of the costs that is. In 1980 for $600,000 or 20% of that original cost you can double the capacity of the plant. Now won't the same thing be true with the plants that are already established. I am concerned' about losing the capital investment that the plant at Snowmass, The Metro District plant where you can increase the capacity for considerably less money than your original investment and I don't like to see that money go down the drain. Is that not true. Mr. Roberts - Not entirely. This regional concept I know is awfully hard to grasp. The whole idea behind the regional concept is Francis Whitaker - I am not talking about the regional concept, I am talking about what it costs to expand the plant once it is in to double its capacity in relation to building a ','hole new plant. Mr. Roberts - There is so much more involved than just a treatment plant here. This, youhave cost of operation not just of the treatment plant but of an entire sewage system. You've got administration, billing and collecting, sewer maintenance, plant operation, plant maintenance there is no question at all that it is cheaper to operate one large plant than several or a dozen small ones. And until you get the one large plant the people will never realize the savings in the Upper Roaring Fork Valley they are continually going to pay high sewer rates, high taxes to actually its throwing away money. , Francis Whitaker - Perhaps you can explain the difference between the $75 dollar tap fee for the Metro system and your proposed $600, thats eight times as much for a sewer tap. Mr. Roberts - I can explain that very easily. This is a matter of equating new users with people who have been paying monthl~ service charges on the system. Its a way to get the new people coming in to share part of that loan. Francis Whitaker - That would be everywhere wouldn't it, entire Roaring Fork Valley. Mr. Roberts - Could be anywhere in the Roaring Fork Valley. Any new user would pay what he is paying to simply equate him with the other people who have really been paying for years. Francis Whitaker - That seems like to me ahigher costs instead of a lower cost. The other question is by your figures the existing plants and the existing districts have a potential capacity of 65,000 population, that is from the hog pasture up this way and up Sno,vrnass. Is there any justification for building another plant as I wrong in that location. Mr. Roberts - Yes, I want to make a correction. Owl Creek I believe is what Snowmass at Aspen drains into or Brush Creek. Francis Whitaker - Brush Creek. Mr. Roberts - They are only at the upper end of that, part of our Brush Creek study area is a fairly high residential area down below Snowmass at Aspen. Francis Whitaker - What I am thin~ing of is the 65,000 capacity is just about - 17 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ,"""., c.,. "O~::I{~l A. ft. It L. en. Reg., P & Z, 11/25/69, continued. what our water plan tells us we will have the water to serve and I just wonder if we are going to get the maximum development of our land when we don't have enough water to go around. Vice Chairman Molny - I can answer that. Mr. Wurl pointed out that under. present available water through water rights its 67,000 and he implied that it might be possible to get that much more in the way of water rights to brin; the water and sewage up to equivalent levels. Francis Whitaker - I have on e more question. awkward political situations which Aspen City Commissioners wish to avoid would be occuring You say in the meantime the and the Pitkin County Board of at frequent intervals. Mr. Roberts - That is correct. Francis Whitaker - I know that there is considerable political pressure against one particular sewage plant and in favor of another and I don't know whether it is based on fact or prejudice. What are those awkward political situations that you refer to. Mr. Roberts - Its very simple. If you have no master plan that you 8re going to facilitate which you are going to put into effect, then anybody who wants to come along can develop their property on an individual basis down to a small subdivider. How can you possibily say no to him, you can't. It means that he can put in a subdivision size treatment plant add go and there isn't a darn thing in the world that anybody ,in this room or anybody anywhere in this valley who can do anything about it. To try and force him into an orderly pattern and make him live up to an orderly system, you could end up in this valley very easily with 200 small subdivision size treatment plants if you don't have a master plan. ., Vice Chairman Molny - Then assuming youhad proper Mr. Roberts - And I call that politically awkhard, yes. Francis Whitaker - I would just like to say I am not against the regional pia Mr. Roberts - I know that you are not. Francis Whitaker - I am against what I see in the background of this. Mr. Roberts - That is what I meant by political. Francis Whitaker - Would you consider a plant which would have a capacity of 47,000 population to be a plant that would operate properly and attract well paid employees. Mr. Roberts - Yes, I would say that one plant could. Vice Chainnan Molny - You could live with a situation where all the present sanitation plants were in operation under a rigid set of pollution controls let us say and additional plant at Wildcat which is a proposed large dev- elopment and also a smaller plant and at the Narrows. Mr. Roberts - You can live withit but its going to cost the people of the valley more than having one system. - 18 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ron"'~ c.,, flOt~Hl ~. ~. ~ L. C~. Reg., P & Z, 11/25/69, continued. Mr. Roberts - You can live with it but its going to cost the people of the valley more than having one system. Vice Chairman Molny - What you are saying in effect, is that in the long run fazing out everything and using one large plant will be cheaper. Mr. ROBerts - No question about it. Vice Chairman }wlny - I have a couple of comments. At the closing paragraph of Section 4 of Regional Concept. The last sentence, last paragraph, "In' order to develop the Upper Roaring Fork Valley to its highest potentials a recreational center, it is imperative that a long range solution to the problem of waste collection and treatment is formulated and put into effect", and also as you have stated many times here we are talking about potential equivalent population. If you want to call it that of 88,000 people. Our present concern both City and County Planning is what exactly the development of the Upper Roaring Fork Valley to its highest potential to consist of. I personally quarrel with the 88,000 figure. I feel that before I give my approval for a recommendation to a plan such as this, I would want to know what it is we're selling. In other words, what is the carrying capacity of the area is. Do we really have enough skiing for instance to support 88,000 people. I would want that determination before we ever moved on this matter. Mr. Roberts - I think I put a maximum of 60,000 visitors. That is at this point your facilities would be so over-crowded that you are going to see people actually start not coming. Vice Chairman Molny - Well planning growth for years, poin~, I don't know if you situation in Aspen. I realize how hard it is to project any kind of I would want a second opinion. Just an incidential are familiar with our concern with the highway " Mr. Roberts - A little. Vice Chairman Molny - Well there is a proposed four-lane highway, it dosen't bear too much on this except I really feel that the implication as far as transportation goes for serving a total equivalent population of 88,000 people would be out of sight. You'd have to take about 2-4 laners or 2-6 landers to move the population and that served by this plant. That would be" another consideration. Mr. Roberts - I won't argue with your figures but your a little high on your projections there,in what you need to move 88,000 people. Vice Chairman Molny - Wellyou see my point, the point I am trying to make is that I ,'lOuld like to see the figures verified by another opinion and also I would like to see the implication of this population to our area would be. I'm talking about good planning. Joe Edwards - This plan of Parker and Associates does not appear to have originated with the Planning and Zoning Commissions, not by the demand of that area being developed by the people, it originated solely by two indiv- iduals ,'Iho decided to do it. I might point out that those two individuals are almost the exclusive landowners in the lower land which would be dev- eloped ;JS a result of this sewer plant. I would also point out that a point that Dwight made, namely that a proposed population in this area of 10 to 15,000 people and that no particular demand to develop that area there is - 19 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves , ,ORM'! C.'.H1f':p;r.le.I.&l.cn. Reg., ) P & Z, 11/25/69, continued. plenty of land to be developed in the areas no" served by the present sewer plants that the burden is being placed immediately in 1970 to start on the higher density areas to open up the development of this lower area where there is no i~nediate need for development except in order to benefit those Bndowners who want to have the sewer so they can start subdivisions down there. Now I think you ought to call a spade a spade. Mr. Roberts - In the fir st place, I don't know what two landowners your referring to. The plant is not being put in to serve 10 or 15,000 people. The plant site was picked to be able to serve the entire 88,000 people that we predicted in a saturation population. Joe Edwards - You have already stated that 60 or 65,000 of those people can be served with our present plant. By the present planst and that would only leave out the 10 or 15,000 down in the lower density areas. Mr. Roberts'- Further still, the year 1970 was picked as a baseyear. , Vice Chairman Molny - Joe, it is my opinion that if this plant is accepted, I really feel it will accelerate land costs and also accelerate development, however, as Mr. Roberts points out there is no reason why those people can't develop their land rightnow, without this plant. This I would bet my life that this would accelerate it a great deal but that development can still occur. . Joe Edwards unless they \ Lamont Kinkade - Not only could they develop it rightnow, but they could develop it with a standard package plant which is less than acceptable. In theory although legally we have to accept them. The theory this is a solution dosen't hold. Now the bigger plants throughout the State do have a better record all the way around than the smaller units and spread allover the County. Its been the problem allover the state in areas where they haven't gone along with this type of program that have turned around and been faced with say a few people going in with subdivions, now there only required under existing Colorado law to have 80% reduction, bigger plants can run up to 95. But legally on a small plant they have 80% reduction and there is nothing we as authorities can do. They can dump - Not with the present bond market, its not going to be developed have an awful lot of cash. Vice Chairman Molny - Unless you took 'care of your own pollution standards or went for enabling legislation. Lamont Kinkade - At this point we don't have enabling legislation. Dick Wright - I don't know if I am in order in suggesting this but it seems to me the differnnt points we are talking about might be brought up in this statement by Mr. Turner. It might save a lot of time and lot of repeating ourselves if we went into this. Dwight Shellman - Enforcement of water pollution standards, my recollection is, is that we haven't examined authorization expressly by State Statutes to acb pt and enforce mllch more strigent standards than state law require. And it is also my understanding the County Commissioners have the authority to zone that part of the County. Now because someone has indicated that both of those things have been attempted that is about 8 million dollars chearper than whats - 20 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves '000" 'l C.'...or:l([L8.e.ll c c., Reg., P & Z, 11/25/69, continued. proposed. I think the discussion of water pollution and uncontrolled dev- elopment do not bear directly on the financial or other feasible means of constructing an 8 million dollar plant and those problems can be solved much cheaper and by other means. So I don't think these other arguments relating until we've said we have tried these other things that they haven't worked. Raymond Turner - (See statement attached) Vice Chairman Molny - Are there any questions anyone would like to direct to Mr. Turner at this time. Mr. Roberts - Yes I have a few. Number one I cm't get clear in my mind because I keep hearing 2 plants, 3 plants just exactly what is proposed. In some of your figures you use 2 plarts versus 1 large one in another one you say 2 plants versus 1 large one and in the last one you say 4 plants versus 1 large one. Which are the plants your talking about, how many of them are there. Raymond Turner - We are not talking about any other plants then what you are talking about. I am taking fromyour report. What we are talking about is the Snowmass plant, the Aspen Metro plant, the Aspen Sanitation District' plant, the Wildcat plant and the new plant to be located at Gerbaz. Mr. Roberts - I did not mention Wildcat in my report. . Raymond Turner - You did mention some of the Wildcat area in your report. Mr. Roberts - Would also like to ask you what the present tax rates are in mills. Raymond Turner - Our present districts have a mill levy at the present time Aspen Sanitation District for the coming year 2.61 mills, Metro 5 mills, Snowmass 2.45. Mr. Roberts - You made several references to a million dollar tribute and also to the fact that we had used the 20 million dollar tax valuation but this was not achieved. You said the financing picture would be in grave trouble. Raymond Turner - We said that you used an 8 million dollar initial capital outlay and that by 1975 you would have to have under your projections 4500 additiional users and tax base of 35 million or your faced with an increase in mill levy because your surplus would be exhausted. Mr. Roberts - Of course, we already have almost the 35 million right off the bat with the tax reappraisal. I would also like to ask one further question if I may. How much money are you proposing to spend when your all done outside of laterals in the Aspen Metro System to take care of 47,700 people. Raymond Turner - Total bonded indebtedness was around 3.7 million. Mr. Roberts - This includs all trunk sewers all sewer mains and all sewer plant expansions. Raymond Turner - It did at the time. - 21- " RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves rOll\l', c. r. "~ECI,,~l ~. e. A l. C3. Reg., P & Z, 11/25/69, continued. Mr. Roberts - Do you have any estimate as to how much you have in the Aspen investment on what is contemplated being spent on this one particular Raymond Turner - I think sewage disposal would be by comparison. By 1972 around 6 or $700,000. our estimate to be spent for trunks, sewers and about, you estimate 3 million dollars in 1970, the other districts with expansion ~ill have spent' Mr. Roberts - What I am referring to is we tried to present a total picture that included the trunk sewers and treatment plant to handle 88,000 people throughout the entire valley. We were taken to task on this, stating this is a tremendous outlay of cash. ' Raymond Turner - I think Mr. Roberts your figures are low. sewer collection cost for our two districts for the entire going to be from 4 to 6 miilion dollars. We think the projection are Mr. Roberts - You said for laterals. Raymond Turner - whether you buid collection is in. All collection laterals in our area arent' geographical area them or we build them, there is no difference which district Mr. Roberts - I don't think you gave us quite enough credit for the amount of laterals we proposed. If your figures are correct, 95% of the population in within 20 years period are going to be in your two districts and I . certainly think you have enough money because all the laterals seem to ' encompass the two districts from what I have seen of your figures. We do have certain developments such as Stanvood which will be a very expensive area to serve. Vice Chairman Molny - Close the public hearing. Mr. Roberts ~e would appreciate it if you would take the time to drop this board a letter clarifying any points that you would like to make or stating any points. It is obvious that we cannot get to the other items on the agenda. What I would like to do is adjourn sechedule a specail meeting to make our determination and send along to City Council and table the rest of the agenda until the special meeting. Clasen made a motion to adjourn this meeting till and table the rest of the agenda till that time. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. next Tuesday at 5:00 p.m/ Seconded by Whitaker. ..' ---:J I! /" . :><::-:::::7 (/ ,. ___.~., . c;.- ,_ / V ~-- -. "--.. L __---.. ~ ;;1-;)-1,< /"-.' _' . ,.' :'~ ,/ ~('r ./ -- Lorra~ne Graves, Secretary