Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9A Water and Sewer Connection Report Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2016 AGENDA #: 9A PREPARED BY: LARRY POPPLER, CITY ENGINEER/INSPECTIONS DIRECTOR PRESENTED BY: LARRY POPPLER AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REPORT WITH RESPECT TO REQUESTS BY PROPERTY OWNERS TO DELAY CONNECTION TO CITY SEWER AND WATER SERVICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 704 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE DISCUSSION: Introduction The purpose of this agenda item is to request City Council direction with respect to connection of private properties to the city’s sanitary sewer and domestic water system in the Mushtown Road, Maple Lane, and Panama Avenue project area. History The City completed the utility installations and mailed notice to property owners for the Mushtown Road, Maple Lane, and Panama Avenue project on September 25, 2015. City Code section 704 provides that properties must connect to municipal water and sewer no longer than one year from its availability unless the property owner provides certification from an independent inspector that the system is compliant with currect standards. This compliant septic system extension may be renewed every 36 months as long as the system remains compliant. Four (4) such properties have provided certification on this project. Current Circumstances Our records indicate that there are 36 potential hookups within the project area. As mentioned, 4 properties have provided compliant septic system certifications. Five (5) properties have not yet hooked up or provided certification. Staff have continued to attempt to communicate to the remaining five property owners who have not yet connected. One property owner is hospitalized, one property is in foreclosure, one property owner has stated that they simply do not have the money to make the connection, one property owner appears to now be making some progress, the last property owner we have not heard from. The City Code does not provide for exceptions to the one year hookup requirement other than the certification. 2 At this point several options are available: 1. Advise all parties that they must pay connection fees by February 28th (within 3 months) and hook up to water and sewer by August 28, 2017(within 6 months of payment of connection fees). This type of timeline was granted for the Sunset Avenue and CSAH 12 Improvement Projects. 2. Inspect each of the properties immediately to confirm their status and issue a citation to the property owner if there property is not compliant. The rationale for this approach is the fact that with very few exceptions we have sought and accomplished utility connection within one year of availability. 3. Amend the City Code to provide for a greater time period from utility availability to connection. The impact of such extensions is two- fold. First, the City must wait to receive fees. Secondly this option is in conflict with the state plumbing code. Conclusion The City Council should determine which, if any of these options, it is comfortable with. ISSUES: The financial impact of the city’s sewer and water and street projects on property owners is significant. The cost to connect most often comes on the heals of a public improvement project which the resident is paying for incrementally over a twenty year period. So the property owner has likely already experienced some financial challenges associated with paying the special assessment. Within the twenty year time frame we ask them to pay an additional significant amount to connect. The two combined give virtually all property owners reason to ask for an extension. If a property owner cannot connect using their own resources, the City can accomplish the work for them and specially assess the costs. The City would need to either issue citations if it were to pursue a criminal route to compliance or bring an injunction against the property owner. In either case the objective would be to obtain a court order authorizing the City to enter onto the property to complete the work. The most likely scenario will be that a private contractor will act as the City’s agent to complete this work. The contractor will be excavating landscaped property, six or more feet deep and ultimately occupying the basement level of the property owner’s house to break through the floor or wall or both to bring in utilities. They would also have to properly abandon the existing well and septic systems. The final action will be to take the prerequisite steps to specially assess the costs against the property. Since the Contractor is the City’s agent, it is possible that the city could be pulled into a dispute regarding restoration, vandalism, or work quality as has happened with our driveway improvements on our improvement projects. The City is in a precarious position here as we do not have inspectors stationed on the property full time. 3 Finally, the City Council should consider the risk of either granting extensions or becoming involved in private property connection. The greater the time extended, if granted, the greater precedent created. On the other hand the greater the number the City chooses to complete, the more complex, burdensome and liability creating they can be. FINANCIAL IMPACT: From a strictly financial perspective, leaving the ordinance as is and mandating hook up is the most cost effective from the City’s perspective. As mentioned above however, the City would incur additional litigation, liability and other such costs by mandating connection ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct staff to contact the 5 properties which have not yet connected and advise them that they must pay fees by February 28, 2017 and must be connected by August 28, 2017. 2. Direct staff to contact the 5 properties to advise that connection is expected immediately and that court proceedings will be initiated for anyone who has not paid fees and pulled a permit within 30 days. 3. Direct staff to prepare modifications to City Code as desired by the City Council. 4. Take no action and direct staff to research other alternatives to address this issue. RECOMMENDED MOTION: As determined by the City Council