As in many professions, there is a continuing education requirement to maintain a real estate license in Minnesota. Today I learned a little more about sewer line scopes (fancy tech) and blockage (not nice). It was an informative hour hosted by an inspector who knows a lot about the physical aspects of homes.
Over the years various piping products have been used for sewer lines. Old is replaced by new usually for higher durability at lower cost. But what triggers the upgrade?
Older cities struggle with this question as no one wants to leakage to seep out of cracking pipes and into the ground a half of a dozen feet below the grassy lawns. Some cities have tried to encourage voluntary assessment and replacement through public messaging. I’m told this isn’t effective. The excavation expense of replacement is quite costly, ranging at a similar price point of a new roof. (And by that comparison it’s a bargain as the waste line, which runs from the exit point of the home to the street main drain connection, typically has a lifespan of 70-90 years. A roof, maybe 25.)
But as is often the case with shared property, everyone wants to be on the receiving end of the transaction and not the paying end. Residents, especially those who do not intend a long ownership period, feel like they are getting stuck with a cost that benefits many different parties over the infrastructure’s lifetime. To them, it makes more sense for a city to tackle the project section by section in the city, collect revenue, and perform the work for replacement.
The counterargument to that process is that sections of functional pipe will be replaced which is wasteful (no pun intended). Those who feel that a public bureaucracy is unable in its structure to obtain the best pricing see an inefficiency in performance here as well. Most of all, an across-the-board tax increase is always politically unpopular. The public pushes back. The project is kicked down the road. And aging pipes get wrecked by tree roots seeking out water and nutrients.
And this is why the point-of-sale solution is put into play. The party with the most to gain from a brand new piece of city infrastructure is a new buyer. A seller is required to comply in order to move forward with their plans. If they are unhappy with city council, oh well! They are out the door. This puts two parties to the transaction in favor of sewer scope inspections upon the sale of a property and one against. This is a positive momentum to get needed upgrades completed.
The downside is that there’s still considerable uncertainty to the extent of failing piping amongst the homes that do not go to market. Instead of a method which tackles the oldest first, the selected repairs are directed at those properties which happen to sell. And that’s not a very big number, maybe 4% of a city’s dwellings. It is also concerning that that it may be enough of an impediment to stop a seller from proceeding, which has negative effects in a market.
Still- it is interesting to note that by combining payment with interests, the likelyhood of infrasturcture repair increases.
Home Economics 