Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer’s request for water hookups prompts council to seek records and table decision
Summary
McKay Kordner and property owners asked for six hookups or other consideration in exchange for access through private land; council asked staff to search 1995 records and tabled the request for 30 days to clarify easement history and terms.
A developer and nearby property owners asked the Preston City Council to consider granting water hookups in connection with a proposed 12-inch water main to serve a new subdivision and to regularize an apparent but unrecorded easement.
McKay Kordner told the council he had previously received permission to run a 12-inch water line through a hollow but that the situation changed; he asked the council to consider allowing future homes to hook onto city water and to consider fee relief for hookup charges. Mark Parker and Amy Parker, who own land along the route, said they and their family could not find a recorded easement for the existing line (installed before 1995), and they asked whether a written easement could be recorded and whether hookup fees could be negotiated.
City legal and public-works staff said an implied easement likely exists because the pipe has been in the ground for about 30 years but that a written easement would clarify responsibilities for maintenance, required width for access, and notice provisions. Staff described the planned physical work: installing a new, larger line (12-inch) in parallel, charging the new line, and decommissioning or filling the old 6-inch line while reconnecting existing homes to the replacement main.
Council members raised several negotiation options: recording a written easement and negotiating a fixed number of hookups (the staff-cited current hookup fee was $7,500), granting hookups at a set price now with the property owner paying future differences if fees increase, or declining to grant free hookups if the city did not originally install the line. Members also asked staff to search county and city records from the mid-1990s for any documentation of the original arrangement.
The council voted to table the easement/hookup request for 30 days so staff could review title records, historical minutes and any recorded easements. Several councilors emphasized that the apparent implied easement likely allows the city to upgrade or repair the existing line but that written documentation would protect both the city and property owners.
