It appears that the method of extending sewer lines (based on the city's mandate to connect to sewer) is discriminatory

 

Henry

 

The city's policy for extending sewer lines appears to be inequitably applied to property owners based on their proximity to existing sewer lines so I'm trying to wrap my head around how this works.

 

The way I understand the city's development policy (for properties within city limits) is that:

a) connecting to sewer is mandatory for new construction and; 

b) the developer must pay for extending the sewer main up to and thru their development. 

 

So here's the rub.  To get the sewer to my property I have to extend it through public land. Assuming the publicly held properties bear no financial responsibility for the sewer extension, how are the costs associated with extending the line through the publicly held properties distributed among the privately held properties?  

 

  It appears that the method of extending sewer lines (based on the city's mandate to connect to sewer) is discriminatory based on one's location to existing infrastructure.  I understand that those costs could be distributed equally among those privately held properties but that doesn't eliminate the disparity created by having to cover the cost of extending a line through public ground. I'm not arguing that the developer shouldn't pay for extending the line through their property. What I'm confused about is why I would have to pay to extend it through public land as well. Shouldn't the cost to extend the line through public land be paid for by the public? Just seems odd that a property owner within city limits has to pay to extend a line through public ground in order to comply with a public mandate.

 

I appreciate any clarification you can provide.

 

Craig

 

Sounds good.  You would think the city would be willing to extend the sewer line to open this land up for development... even if Go Topeka or JEDO covered the cost to extend the line to the property it would make a huge difference.  It would cost them less than $500k but would easily result in $20 million in new construction.  This means the City would be collecting an additional $90k a year in property taxes.... that's a pretty damn decent return on investment.   

 

On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 1:48 PM Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com> wrote:

I will look into this and get back to you.