Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sanitary Sewer Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves extension request for King Street shared sanitary lateral, staff cautions on precedent
Summary
The board unanimously approved an extension request to separate shared sanitary laterals on King Street. Property owners asked for a lower‑cost option to run a neighbor's lateral through their parcel; staff said policy generally prohibits laterals crossing adjoining parcels and warned about setting precedent.
The Board of Public Works approved an extension request related to separating a shared sanitary lateral affecting properties at 1009/1011 and 1003 King Street.
Tina Erickson of the utilities office explained the case differs from an earlier request because the properties are already compliant on water service but share a noncompliant sanitary lateral between two parcels; under current policy, that situation requires correction and cannot be allowed to persist.
Property owner Carl Green said the shared lateral had caused two prospective sales to fall through and asked the board to consider allowing a neighboring property’s sanitary lateral to run through his parcel while physically separating the two properties’ sewers, which he said would be a lower‑cost alternative and would prevent potential backflows. "I would like some consideration of the option to maintain a lateral from the neighboring property through our property but separate the sewers," Green told the board.
Erickson cautioned that city policy generally prohibits sewer or water laterals from crossing adjoining parcels and that allowing an exception would set a precedent for future cases. She noted that temporary measures have been allowed in limited past situations when a new main was expected soon, but the board should consider whether any exception would be workable across similar circumstances.
A motion to approve the requested extension was made by Council member Goggins and seconded by Council President Dickinson; the motion passed unanimously. Staff said any broader easement or permanent change would need separate consideration and review.
