Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The policy on 1l1tiliti!utside the City limits has always requi.ouncil's approval of each <br />request and we feel that this should remain a key feature of our policies. Staff also assumes <br />that the rate of 1.5 times for service will remain along with requirements related to plumbing, <br />service, etc. However, these recent requests will require refmements to our current policy <br />if Council wishes to provide service. <br /> <br />SEVERAL KEY POUCY OR SPECIALTY ISSUES ARE: <br /> <br />San Jacinto Battleground <br />. Does Council wish to consider providing water service to San Jacinto <br />Battleground (outside City and ETJ)? <br /> <br />. Does Council wish to approve service that guarantees a minimum water <br />pressure and quality? (Staff does not recommend this.) We suggest that we <br />deliver water to a storage facility that is owned by San Jacinto Battleground <br />Park and from that point forward have no responsibility or warranty. <br /> <br />. Does Council wish to provide maintenance for the park's distribution system? <br />(Staff does not recommend this.) <br /> <br />For prospective businesses along Fairmont ParkwlU' and SH225 <br /> <br />. If water and/or sewer service is provided, does Council wish to secure certain <br />land use agreements? <br />. Le. setbacks, uses, some landscaping <br /> <br />. Is Council willing to extend limited sewer service to these areas based on <br />similar provisions contained in the policy for water service? <br /> <br />. At the end of the current IDA's (December 31, 2(00) does Council wish to <br />preserve the option to consider annexation? <br /> <br />For both current and future water service agreements <br /> <br />. Is Council willing to extend the term of agreements beyond five years? <br /> <br />Finally, our current policy provides for utility rates that are 1.5 times the rate a business in <br />the City would pay. This rate is sufficient to recover the operating expenses and debt service <br />requirements of our utility system. I assume that Council is comfortable with this <br />arrangement without introducing any other capital fees. We also require a one-time <br />administrative fee of $100/employeee (with a minimum of $5,000 and a maximum of <br />$15,(00). This fee may be perceived as inequitable for requests that are no longer based or <br />limited by a set employee demand of 5G-gaVper day. If Council desires, we will return with <br />some other options for their consideration. <br />