1994-01-07 Lift Station Maintenance
01-07-199403:16PM FROM RADZWILLLAWOFFICE
TO
4973210' P.02
XBKORAlfDtJK
TO:
LJ:RJ)A EOUGlI'l'OIf, CITY OJ' ALDD~ILLB
DDIWXLL LAW OJ-FICB, KIltE COUR.I~a
JABUUY 7, 19t.
nOK:
DATE:
RB: PARKSIDB 1ST ADDITION LIFT STATION
*..***.*.....********..........*.**.***...***..**......***...******
As we discussed on January 5, 1994, I do not believe that the
City can require Kenco, the Developer of Parkside 1st and 2nd
Additions, t.o operate or maintain the t.emporary liftstation in
Parks ide 1st. Addition's plat. There are two reasons for this
conclusion.
First, the city council approved the design of the sanitary
sewer system, whiCh I believe included the temporary liftstation,
when it approved the plans and specs for Parkside First Addition.
Thus, the Developer has complied with the City's ordinances in
havinq the City approve the design of the systQ11l. Under the
subdivision ordinance, the Developer is obliqatedonly to install
the municipal improvements (the sewer in this case). If the
improvements have been installed accordinq to specs, and the land
in which they have been placed have been properly dedicated to the
City, the city (by virtue of its ordinances and approval of the
plat) is obligated to accept. t.he improvements and to allow the
houses within the plat to hookup to the sewer, provided that all
other permits and requirements have been met.. The ordinance
imposes no further obliqations upon the Developer as to the
maint.enance or operation of the sewer once these steps have been
taken.
Second, paragraph 14 (a) of the Parkside 1st Addition
Developer's Agreement requires the Developer to dedicate the roads,
sewers and road right of ways to the City upon completion of
installation of all required improvements. Once dedicated, the
City is responsible for operating and maintaining t.he sewers in
Parks ide in t.he same manner as the dedicated sewers in any other
subdivision.
Nort.hwest Associated Consultants have raised the possibility
of setting up a special taxinq or assessment district consisting of
those properties who utilize the lift station, thus allowing the
City to. pass ~e costs of maintenance on to these property owners.
While the establishment of such a district may be possible, the
potential cost.s recovered may not be larqe enough to justify the
expenses incurred in the establishment of the district.
It should be noted that the ordinances do not preclude an
agreement whereby the Developer agrees to pay for some of the
operational or maintenance costs, but I do not believe that at this
stage in the process the City could force the Developer to pay
these Qosts.
cc: Liz St.ockman I NAC