BENTONVILLE — An attorney for Bella Vista asked a judge to dismiss his motion seeking to end a case involving a challenge to a city ordinance requiring new homeowners to connect to a privately owned sanitary sewer system.
Bryan Vernetti, attorney for the city, filed the dismissal motion after the July lawsuit was filed in Benton County Circuit Court.
Bentonville attorney Lisa Kelley filed the suit on behalf of Lesa Chilton and John and Janel Stryker. Bella Vista and Village Waste Water are named as defendants.
Vernetti previously said he filed a motion to dismiss the suit because the complaint failed to state whether the plaintiffs own property and how the ordinance impacted them.
Vernetti told Circuit Judge John Scott his concerns had been addressed and asked Scott to dismiss the motion to dismiss Friday. Vernetti said an amended complaint addressed his concerns by stating the plaintiffs had to pay hookup fees for sewer service. Scott granted the motion to dismiss the motion.
The suit contends neither Bella Vista nor the Bella Vista Property Owners Association operate or control the sewer systems referenced in the suit. Village Waste Water isn’t a public utility cooperative, and the company owns, operates and controls the sanitary sewer systems, according to the suit.
The suit questions whether the city can enforce the ordinance since it doesn’t own the service it requires residents to connect to. Failure to connect to the sewer system would be a violation, and there could be a penalty of up to $250 a day if a violation continues, according to court documents.
The suit claims the City Council didn’t narrowly tailor the law to cover only failed or failing septic tanks and exceeded its authority in passing the ordinance. The ordinance also extends to discontinuing the use of septic systems that work properly and pose no health risk, according to court documents.
The three plaintiffs and others have paid to be in compliance with a statute that could be unconstitutional, according to the suit. The suit requests an injunction against the city enforcing the ordinance if the court finds the ordinance improper. The suit also wants the court to award costs residents already have spent complying with the ordinance.