Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />John Anderson <br />From:Joel Jamnik <JJamnik@ck-law.com> <br />Sent:Wednesday, July 6, 2016 10:34 AM <br />To:Dave Scherbel <br />Cc:John Anderson; Sue Iverson; Ryan Streff; Matthew Bachler; Dave Perrault <br />Subject:RE: Water shut off opinion <br />The League’s public works listserv lit up about this topic yesterday. I have client cities that do both, including several that <br />have municipal electric utilities that do not have clear authority to certify delinquent bills. Both methods have their <br />positives and negatives, some of which are discussed in the LMC memo on the topic, <br />http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj_lO7hit_NA <br />hXH3YMKHevvCmkQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lmc.org%2Fmedia%2Fdocument%2F1%2Fsecuringpay <br />mentsofutilitycharges.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFNu9ncNLv7sigNsPJb7ddXn1pQ0g&sig2=-ZeLEcaV-d0fM7WELIPO- <br />Q&bvm=bv.126130881,d.dmo <br /> <br />For example, shut-off policies now frequently run afoul of bankruptcy and medical equipment shut-off limitations, as well <br />as the dark of night reconnection problem, and the cold weather rule. And due process hearing requirements can get very <br />messy, as does the building code requirement of having a potable water supply in order to maintain an occupancy <br />permit. For these reasons, most cities find certification easier and more efficient. <br /> <br />However, certifications can get snagged by intervening bankruptcy filings, which has led to many cities certifying <br />quarterly and delinquencies over a certain amount or more than two quarters overdue. <br /> <br />Overall, I lean toward quarterly certification as the best or “least worst” collection method we have available for overdue <br />bills, but disconnection needs to be retained as an option if we are dealing with other types of violations/enforcement <br />issues. And our code does allow for both of those options, as well as a civil lawsuit to collect and criminal charges if <br />there is a theft of service. <br /> <br />Joel J. Jamnik  <br />CAMPBELL KNUTSON, P.A. <br />Grand Oak Office Center I  <br />860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 <br />Eagan, MN 55121 <br /> (651) 234‐6219 ● Fax: (651) 234‐6237  <br /> jjamnik@ck-law.com ● www.ck-law.com  <br /> <br />From: Dave Scherbel [mailto:DScherbel@cityofardenhills.org] <br />Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 9:26 AM <br />To: Joel Jamnik <br />Cc: John Anderson; Sue Iverson; Ryan Streff; Matthew Bachler; Dave Perrault <br />Subject: Water shut off opinion <br />  <br />  <br />Good morning Joel,   <br />The question has come up as to whether we can shut the water off to a home for nonpayment of their utility bill.  <br />Currently we assess the property and place the bill on their property taxes.  <br />Our previous attorney, Jerry Filla, was pretty adamant about not shutting off someone’s water bill for any reason.  <br />From my stand point, if we shut off someone’s water and they are currently living in the home, we now have to placard  <br />the home as uninhabitable for health & sanitary reasons.  <br />What is your opinion?  <br />Thanks,   <br />