A city resident’s attempt to get repaid for eight years of sewer bills seems to have backed up on her, so to speak.
On August 24, 2011, Judie Johnson of Grand Marais told the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that she should be refunded for sewer charges from the eight years leading up to sewer reconstruction on her street in 2008.
When the company hired by the city to replace sewer lines on 6th Ave. West was working in front of her house, Johnson said, her basement backed up with spring water coming in from the floor drain. The workers discovered that her sewer waste was going into a drain field rather than into the city’s sewer system, she said, and in the process of their work, they wrecked her drain field.
City Water/Wastewater Superintendent Tom Nelson said if the water that backed up into her basement was clean water, it was probably coming from the groundwater around her house rather than from plumbing inside the house. A floor drain should not lead to the city’s wastewater system, he said, but it appeared to be doing just that since it backed up when the street work was done.
Nelson and City Administrator Mike Roth agreed to look into the records and consult with the company that had done the street work. Roth said the city could only go six years back with refunds even if the city had made a mistake before that.
At the September 21 PUC meeting, Administrator Roth said they consulted with the company that did the street work and found that Johnson’s sewer pipe was disconnected briefly in 2008 during construction, which is when water backed up into Johnson’s basement.
A letter to Superintendent Nelson from Office Manager/City Engineer Jamison Mehle, PE, of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. states, “I have reviewed our construction notes and discussed the location with our resident project representative (RPR) who was onsite during the construction at this location. …He said that the existing sewer service from the home to the main was a black perforated pipe. The contractor connected to it with solid PVC and commented to the property owner that the rest of the service was perforated like a drain tile.
“…The RPR’s notes on his plan set indicate that the contractor installed nine feet of six-inch PVC and connected to a four-inch perforated pipe. From his construction diary notes, the contractor started work on the sewer in this area on August 11. On August 12, they were notified that there was a backup; they went back and found they missed reconnecting the service to this home on the 11th. It was reconnected on the 12th.
“…There is no indication that this service had not originally been connected to the city sanitary sewer main. If it had not been, it would have backed up long ago. Our RPR did not indicate, nor remembers finding, any ‘solids’ in the area during the digging and installation of the new main and the service connection, which would be an indication of the service not being connected to the main.
“With this service being a perforated pipe, a great deal of clean water is infiltrating the sanitary sewer system. The service is basically functioning as a foundation drain and drain tile. Per the city code this is not allowed.”
Roth told the PUC that they have no proof that wastewater from Johnson’s house is entering the city’s line. PUC Commissioner Tim Kennedy said most of the four-inch pipes of this type are never full, and the holes in them are on the top, so that leakage will occur only when they are full.
Superintendent Nelson wrote Johnson a letter, which the PUC approved for mailing. It states in part, “Per findings of SEH your claim of not having been hooked to the city sanitary sewer system prior to 2008 is unfounded and your request for compensation for past paid sewer charges is denied. Furthermore, it has been brought to the PUC by you and SEH that the property has a perforated sewer pipe connecting to the city’s sanitary sewer. Per the city code this type of perforated pipe is not allowed for sanitary sewer connections and action on your part is needed to correct the situation.
“…In addition to denying your claim, this letter also serves as your 60-day official written notice whereas you have to disconnect the perforated sewer pipe and replace it with an approved sewer pipe at the above address.”
Another refund request denied
Commissioners discussed a letter from Lois Johnson asking the PUC to forgive part of a bill to the Grand Marais Condominiums for 56,000 gallons of water that had been running through a toilet in June in a condo unit Johnson rents out. Water and sewer charges are sent to the condo association as a unit, and the association had lowered Johnson’s bill from $800 to $540 at her request.
Utility Administrative Specialist Jan Smith said the city discovered the leak but couldn’t find anyone associated with the condo units to notify over the weekend when the renter was gone and the water was running.
Johnson made a courteous request in her letter: “Because we are a large building of mainly seniors [and] do not have a live-in manager, is there any way we could have set up a remote alarm system to let you and/or our building know when we are using an out-of-the-ordinary amount of water? I understand that this system is available in other areas of the state. It seems to me that this could be a win-win for everyone.” In a later phone interview, Smith said she wrote Johnson back saying such a system would be something the condo association could look into.
Commissioner Kennedy stated that the precedent has been not to forgive water bills when water runs and enters the sewer system. (They have lowered bills when pipes have leaked into the ground before entering a building.) The board did not offer Johnson a refund.
Leave a Reply