Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sewer Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff brief commission on sewer-extension policies, paybacks and possible incentives
Summary
Kingman City staff presented a report on sewer-extension policy, payback agreements and options to increase sewer connections, including possible loans or ordinance changes; staff will continue discussions with city management and may return with draft language.
City staff presented a written report and a verbal summary to the Kingman City Municipal Utility Commission on existing policy for sewer extensions, developer paybacks and city participation in extension projects.
Staff explained the city requires individual home builders to connect to public sewer if they are within 500 feet of an existing sewer main, provided the site can be served by gravity. For larger subdivisions, developers must connect all parcels and may enter payback agreements when they construct mains that later benefit adjacent property owners. “The payback agreement expires in 20 years,” the presenter said, adding that the observed payback rate is “less than 15%” in jurisdictions where connections are optional.
The staff presenter compared Kingman’s approach with other Arizona cities, noting Lake Havasu City, Bullhead City and Phoenix commonly set thresholds between 250 and 300 feet, and that Flagstaff largely prohibits septic systems inside its city limits. Staff estimated that abandoning a septic tank and building a tap and connection could cost about $6,000 per connection (not including payback), and noted a modern septic system can cost roughly $15,000; the presenter also cited manhole costs of about $7,500 when extensions are necessary.
Commissioners discussed enforcement challenges — staff said it is difficult to identify failed septic systems unless a property owner reports it. Staff said management and finance staff have discussed possible incentive programs, including loans to help homeowners connect, with repayment via system development or utility revenues. The presenter said they would continue those internal discussions and could bring proposed regulatory language or program options back to the commission.
One commissioner asked about conflicts between county rules and the city’s policy; staff noted county ordinances apply outside city limits and that an ordinance adopted by the city would only apply inside the city boundaries. The commission did not vote on any ordinance; staff took direction to continue exploring options and to return with recommended language if appropriate.
