At the August, 2012 meeting, Council made a motion to send letters to the owners of the three (3) lots regarding the estimated cost of adding additional sewer line to the Ashmont sanitary sewer system and to waive the $1,000 connection fee on the three lots, if the owners agree to connect to the sewer line.
The quote for a lift station and piping required to connect the 3 properties that are currently not connected to the sanitary sewer.
Lift Station $9,400
Directional Drill/tie ins/pipe $13,830
Power service $6,600
Total cost per lot for the connection is $12,643.33. The quote does not included cost for resident to tie into the sewer line - we estimate that to be approx $2,000. Currently the Utilities Bylaw requires the resident to pay $1,000 to connect to a sewer line. Therefore each connection to this line without any subsidy would potentially be $15,643. A letter was sent to Mr. Kubinchak in August 2012 indicating that Council was willing to put in the necessary sewer line however the cost would have to be paid by the residents.
Recently Mr. Kubinchak has called and is having issues with his private septic system again. He is requesting that Council consider installing the sewer line to the three properties and allow him to pay the $1,000 connection fee. He has indicated that he is going to involve a lawyer in this regard.
In discussions with Municipal Affairs and Superior Safety Codes, even though the County did approve the private septic system at the time it was installed, several factors could play a role in why the system is not working. They do not believe that the County has any liability or responsibility to repair or replace the system. Even so, according to Utility staff, the County did replace the system once at the County's expense. During 2012 the County also provided more fill for the property without charge to Mr. Kubinchak in order to try to mitigate his problem. This apparently did not work. Planning and Development staff indicate that when the system was originally installed, there was no need to do the testing that is now required under the regulations - likely the ground would not meet the percolation tests.