Council opts to cost-share sewer line work

The Sundance City Council has agreed to chip in on a bill of several thousand dollars to fix a backed up sewer line, raising the question of where exactly the city’s responsibility ends when it comes to a utility issue around a property’s connection point.

Levi and Sophia Galloway attended last week’s meeting to make a polite request for assistance on a bill of $7533.

Sophia explained that, two months ago, the couple began noticing a sewer smell at their home and eventually discovered that the sewer had backed up under the building and had at that point led to standing water.

The issue was found at the ditch line across the street, where the service line had separated three to four feet from the terracotta main.

The bill, the couple said, included reattachment of the pipe and road repairs where it was necessary to dig up the street.

According to Public Works Director Mac Erickson, the street will be repaved as part of an upcoming city project and the repair only needed to bring it up to a standard where the paving could be done.

Mayor Paul Brooks addressed the crux of the issue: how much of this issue was the city’s problem and how much was the responsibility of the landowner? Where is the exact point at which one ends and the other begins?

“Where is the demarcation point?” he asked, pointing out that businesses such as Range and Powder River Energy have very clear guidelines on the precise location at which the landowner becomes responsible.

Nothing in the city’s ordinances sets this in stone, replied Erickson. However, he said he has always worked on the assumption that the homeowner owns their service line and the connection.

In this case, the issue happened at the service point but the shut-off valve is on the property line, around 24 feet away.

If the demarcation point is considered to be the meter pit, said Council Member Joe Wilson, this would mean that two thirds of the problem was on city property.

On the other hand, said Brooks, this service line only benefits one property – it is not a main line.

The council discussed the issue with an eye to future potential problems and how cost-sharing should be handled in a more general manner.

Though no written policy exists, Brooks commented that setting a precedent is not necessarily a concern. The council changes form every two years, he said, and cannot bind future councils, therefore has the latitude to tell one person yes and another no.

“Realistically, it’s a case by case basis,” agreed Wilson.

Council Member Randy Stevenson made a motion to pay 70% of the cost, based on the footage on city property.

“I’m not assuming responsibility for every service line, I just think that helping this young family is the right thing to do in this case,” he said.

The motion passed unanimously.