Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> 25 <br /> CITY OF SAN MARCOS <br /> , ,It V ¡¡¡- <br /> OFFICE MEMORANDUM <br />t>: Mayor Emmie Craddock <br />FROM: Members of the City counCil~ <br /> A. C. Gonzalez, City Manage <br />SUBJECT: Allocation of Remaining Wastewater Capacity for Next 3 Package <br /> Plants <br />DATE: February 27, 1985 RE: <br />I have recently forwarded to City Council a memoranda which was sent to <br />area developers inviting them to discuss with City Staff the problem of <br />allocating the remaining wastewater capacity. During the two meetings <br />held with the developers, it became obvious no clear consensus could be <br />reached in recommending one allocation method. It appears three <br />general positions were taken by those present. The following options <br />represent those interests: <br />1. OPTION II: Create white market. Allow the first 2ØØØ LUE's to <br /> be sold at Holders' will to anyone (possibly thru the City). <br /> Allocate remaining capacity as originally designed but allow <br /> these Holders also to sell reservations. Advantages - allows <br /> market place to determine price and allocation, less bureaucracy. <br /> Disadvantages - creates closed market for "lucky ones", adds <br /> additional non-value added cost to development to pay for <br /> speculation expense. <br />2. OPTION IV: Eliminate priority list. City fronts package plant <br /> projects first come first serve basis. Advantage - eliminates <br /> much of the bureaucracy, equally fair. Disadvantage - City <br /> fronts financing, priority list eliminated. If City Council is <br /> not inclined to finance the project, then OPTION VI would be <br /> similar to OPTION IV. <br /> OPTION VI: Tier System. Creates a series of tiers of priority <br /> using priority list but based on status of project development. <br /> Each level would include definite criteria (e.g., plat approval, <br /> building permit submitted, proper zoning obtained, Master Plan <br /> conformance, etc.) which would sort out projects in order of <br /> those most ready to develop at the head of the line and others <br /> behind, those bumped at bottom would be compensated. Advantages <br /> - would address central problem of moving projects ready for <br /> development to the front of the line, would generate developer <br /> front end financing, everyone would know where they are at, those <br /> bumped would be compensated. Disadvantages - complicated, <br /> cumbersome, does not necessarily guarantee anyone anything, <br /> could intensify anxieties of proceeding with projects; and <br />~SM-100 <br />