City Council Approves Sewer Cost Recovery Resolution, Opts to Absorb $15,000 Northwoods Cost to Finalize Action
- Steve Jurrens
- 6 days ago
- 3 min read
Northeast Radio SD News - Watertown, SD - The Watertown City Council approved a resolution to establish a public infrastructure cost recovery for the Northeast Interceptor sanitary sewer (City Project Number 1119) following an extensive discussion that culminated in the official exclusion of the Northwoods housing development and a decision to absorb the corresponding unrecovered cost. The unanimous final vote concluded a debate centered on private property rights, future growth, and financial fairness.
The Resolution and Initial Opposition
The resolution, presented by City Engineer Justin Petersen, aimed to lock in the cost recovery fee for the existing sanitary sewer line, which runs to the school district's bus barn. Petersen clarified that the fee is a cost recovery—not an immediate assessment—that would only be collected if a property is annexed into the city and a building permit is issued for sewer use.
Mayor Holien and City Manager Alan Stager initially assured the public that the City could not legally force annexation on the area, and any connection to the line would be entirely voluntary.
Despite these assurances, Marty Burkhart, President of the Northwoods Homeowners Association, strongly opposed the measure. He noted a similar proposal was rejected in 2013 and stressed that the residents built outside city limits by choice. He requested the development be removed from the recovery map, arguing that being included was unfair and would complicate property sales by requiring a disclosure of the potential fee.
Protecting Future Costs vs. Neighborhood Will
City Manager Stager offered a defense of including the neighborhood, suggesting it would benefit homeowners by "locking" the cost into the 2011 project price. He reasoned that if they were excluded and later needed to connect due to environmental changes, they would potentially pay a much higher, current-day rate.
Burkhart acknowledged the point but countered that the potential savings did not outweigh the homeowner's future hook-up costs, which include abandoning or removing existing septic systems. He also cited private infrastructure issues—such as the privately owned road, gas, water, and drainage lines—as reasons the City would likely not want to annex the area.
Following this testimony, Mayor Holien recommended the Council respect the will of the landowners and amend the resolution to exclude Northwoods.
The Amendment and Financial Dilemma
The Council agreed to move toward the exclusion but faced a complex financial question: Should the estimated $15,000 in lost recovery funds from Northwoods be redistributed to the remaining landowners, or should the City absorb the loss?
City Engineer Petersen explained that redistributing the cost would require restarting the process with a new resolution and sending certified notices to all remaining landowners, delaying the final action and increasing administrative expense. Mr. Stager advised against redistribution, suggesting that raising the costs on current participants could invite further pushback and requests for exclusion.
Robert Fox, a large landowner in the recovery area, highlighted the financial implications, noting that excluding Northwoods would inevitably "raise that cost on the rest of us land owners" due to the cost distribution. He also raised a broader infrastructure concern, citing former City staff who questioned whether the existing interceptor line would be large enough to handle the full commercial development expected along the Highway 81 corridor and potentially overwhelm the City’s south-end sanitation plant.
Councilman Jurrens voted against the first amendment, preferring to restart the resolution process to ensure all remaining costs were accurately redistributed. However, other Council members prioritized expediency. Councilman Peters pointed to the Northwoods Homeowners Association's bylaw, which requires a 100% unanimous vote for annexation, solidifying his view that the City should remove the burden and move forward.
Ultimately, the Council agreed to absorb the potential $15,000 shortfall to finalize the resolution immediately.
The Council passed an amendment to exclude the Northwoods First, Second, and Third Edition in Section 16, Township 117, Range 52 of Codington County, South Dakota. The amendment carried with a vote of 6-1.
The final motion to approve the resolution as amended then passed unanimously. The vote formally establishes the cost recovery for the Northeast Interceptor, excludes the Northwoods development, and sets the fixed recovery rate for the remaining properties in the service area.
