Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Sewer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council splits on $170,000 Belton sewer capacity study; contract deferred by vote
Summary
The St. Helens City Council debated and then declined to authorize a $~170,000 contract for a capacity study of the Belton (Belt) sewer step system, with councilors citing timing and budgetary concerns. Engineering staff said costs are under $200,000 and the study would clarify whether additional connections are feasible.
Councilors on May 7 split over whether to authorize a contract with an engineering firm to study capacity and connection feasibility for the Belton (Belt) sewer step system.
Sharon, a city engineering representative, told the council that the scoped cost estimate from the selected consultant, Grayling Engineers, was “well under $200,000,” and that she expected the fee to be about $170,000. The study would document system capacity so staff could make consistent decisions on whether proposed new lots could connect to the existing sewer system.
Several council members expressed concern about approving the contract immediately because the city’s budget cycle was in flux and they preferred to delay non‑urgent work until after budget decisions. One councilor said the city already has engineering resources and asked whether the expenditure could be postponed or rolled into next year’s work plan.
Councilors also described the matter as follow‑up to an earlier inquiry: a land‑partition application had asked whether a new home could connect, and staff lacked firm capacity data to respond. The study would provide an objective basis for future permitting decisions.
When the council split the consent actions into individual votes, the motion to award the Belton sewer step system contract (item 11) failed: Councilor Sandeep voted aye; Council President Chilton voted nay; Councilor Hubbard voted nay; Mayor Jennifer Massey voted nay. Councilors who voted against the contract cited timing and a desire to defer until after the budget process; staff said the work can be done later but will likely cost more if delayed.
Sharon told the council the work was needed to resolve recurring development questions in the Belton area and cautioned that delaying the study meant the city would continue to receive requests without the necessary technical basis to answer them.
No alternate funding or timeline was adopted at the meeting; staff were directed to report back as part of the budget or when the council chooses to re‑authorize the study.
