Council delays decision on pump‑and‑haul for 18‑lot Trioint subdivision after debate on easement and long‑term risks

Tori, a city staffer overseeing utilities, outlined two options for wastewater service to an annexed 14‑acre Trioint Homes site proposing 18 lots: Option A would allow a temporary pump‑and‑haul arrangement (initially limited to 12 LUE, with build‑out of 18 LUE) while Option B would forbid pump‑and‑haul and require the developer to wait for permanent capacity from the city’s treatment plant. “Pump and haul is meant to be a temporary service until permanent wastewater service is available,” Tori said.

Council members and staff spent the bulk of the hour pressing on timing, operational risks and precedent. Mayor Foss and several council members asked whether pump‑and‑haul had been used only for short intervals in the past and how often trucks would be required; staff answered that servicing 12 homes would likely require about three hauls per week, increasing slightly if all 18 homes were occupied. “It’ll be less than once a day,” a staff member said when estimating hauls for the 12‑home scenario.

The applicant stressed that the project includes a time‑limited, third‑party easement along the city’s preferred alignment and warned the easement would expire if the council delayed. An engineer for the applicant, Jay Harris, said the developer had secured an easement and planned a corridor that staff and the city engineer preferred; without using that easement, connections would require a different alignment that could be more disruptive and costly.

Opponents and cautious council members pressed two themes: (1) pump‑and‑haul has higher environmental and operational liabilities, and (2) an open‑ended authorization could leave residents enduring lengthy hauling if the treatment plant build‑out is delayed. “Whether you push it on Creek Road . . . or you push it on to Roger Hanks onto 290, there’s no ideal situation,” one council member said, noting the nuisance and complaint burden that long‑term hauling can generate.

Staff confirmed the city has a discharge permit in process for the expanded plant but said construction timing remains uncertain; engineers estimated the plant build could be 18–36 months out and perhaps longer in some scenarios. Multiple council members asked for detailed engineering input and a firmer construction timeline before acting.

After extended discussion, a motion to postpone consideration was made and seconded so council could obtain technical analysis from Burgess & Niple and the plant designer Curillo. The council voted to continue the item to the June 16 meeting so staff could provide additional engineering timelines and risk assessments. No final agreement or authorization was adopted; the developer indicated it would seek an extension from the easement holder if needed.